i

IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF “WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES” IN INDIA (Review and Analysis Based on the Studies Conducted by Various Government Agencies and Other Organisations)

Dr. Prem Singh Dr. H.C. Behera Ms. Aradhana Singh

CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESEARCH

LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATION

MUSSOORIE-248179

i

IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF “WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMMES” IN INDIA (Review and Analysis Based on the Studies Conducted by Various Government Agencies and Other Organisations)

Dr. Prem Singh

Dr. Hari Charan Behera

Ms. Aradhana Singh

CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESEARCH

LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATION

MUSSOORIE-248179

ii

CONTENTS_____________________________________

Preface i

Abbreviations iii

Executive Summary vi

1.

Chapter-1 Introduction

1

2. Chapter-2

Review and Analysis

12

3. Chapter-3 Conclusion

45

i

PREFACE__________________________________________________________

The Watershed Development Programme (WDP) initially envisaged as a

measure for poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods has gained even

greater importance in light of the worldwide recognition of its effectiveness in

combating climatic change. In India several Ministries namely, Ministry of

Agriculture, Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Environment and

Forests have been involved in Watershed Development Programs with

substantial variation in their approaches. The Ministry of Rural Development had

been coordinating sector-wise flagship schemes such as IWDP, DPAP and DDP

under Watershed Development Programmes. The main objective of the WDP

was to improve water conservation, irrigation facility, and land use pattern

leading to increased agricultural productivity in drought prone and desert prone

areas. Poverty reduction, better livelihoods and improved bio-physical and socio-

economic environment would bring about sustainable development.

An interdisciplinary approach has been followed for this study, given the complex

and diverse factors underlying WDPs, such as the bio-physical, social,

ecological, institutional and economic factors, besides the regional variations.

The programme is operational across the country that involves multiple

stakeholders. The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India

encourages debates and discussions and has formed various Committees to

solicit feedback for improving the programme implementation in the country. The

schemes such as IWDP, DPAP and DDP were merged under the Integrated

Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) in 2008, to bring about a

comprehensive approach to sustainable development. The „Common

Guidelines-2008‟ was developed for effective implementation of the project.

The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) had earlier taken up country wide

evaluation of watershed development projects sanctioned during 1995-1998.

Subsequently, another country wide evaluation of the projects sanctioned

during the year 1998-2002 was undertaken. National Institute of Rural

Development (NIRD) was selected as a nodal agency by the MoRD. The

NIRD had successfully coordinated the study across different states. Further

SIRDs and ATIs are also involved in the study in some states. The

involvement of many organisations across the country with vast experience in

the field of watershed has made the study comprehensive and well

researched. The Centre for Rural Studies (CRS) at Lal Bahadur Shastri

National Academy of Administration was entrusted with the analysis and

evaluation of the reports submitted by various agencies.

This study contains an analysis of the reports from the 12 states

encompassing various dimensions such as physical, social and institutional

ii

among others. The analysis reveals that although the NIRD had developed

common tools for data collection such as Rapid Reconnaissance Survey,

Present Profile of the study areas and household survey approaches, the

rigour of the individual reports varies with the capacities and understanding of

the organisations involved.

In the present study, the effort has been to assess the impact of WDPs – the

effectiveness of the programmes, identification of issues and lacunae in

project implementation across the states - based on the reports submitted by

various agencies.

The study noticed changes in ground water level, surface water, irrigation facility,

water regeneration capacity, land use pattern, cropping pattern, livestock

production, employment generation, income generation and debt reduction, etc.

These changes are observed in all watershed development programmes with

certain variations. But the changes like land use pattern, cropping pattern, crop

diversification, etc. are more prominent in the watershed regions. Some areas

need further attention such as greater involvement of the communities during

implementation & post implementation phases, training & capacity building,

social audit, women participation, and sustainable income generation. The

programmes have been examined from the structural and functional dimensions

and their effectiveness has been measured from the benefits accrued to various

stakeholders.

We are grateful to the Department of Land Resources for their assistance in

bringing out this report. We also express our gratitude to the NIRD and other

evaluating agencies whose primary reports are basis for this analysis.

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Padamvir Singh, IAS,

Director, LBSNAA, Mr. Prem Kumar Gera and Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, the Joint

Directors of the Academy and Mr. Ashish Vachhani, Deputy Director of the

Academy for their guidance and valuable inputs.

Thanks are due to all, especially the CRS faculty members and staff, who

have contributed directly and indirectly for bringing out this analytical study on

Watershed Development Programs.

Dr. Prem Singh, IAS

Centre Director

Centre for Rural Studies

iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS_________________________________________

CBO: Community Based Organisation

CCB: Continuous Contour Bund

CGIAR-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CPR: Common Property Resources

COWDEP: Comprehensive Watershed Development Programme

CSS: Centrally Sponsored Scheme

CRS: Centre for Rural Studies

CVB: Contour Vegetative Bund

CVH: Contour Vegetative Hedge

DDP: Desert Development Programme

DLT: Drainage Line Treatment

DoLR : Department of Land Resources

DPAP: Drought Prone Area Development Programme

DPR: Detailed Project Report

DRDA: District Rural Development Agency

EAP: Externally Aided Projects

EAS: Externally Aided Scheme

EPA: Entry Point Activity

FAO: Food and Agricultural Organisation

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GEMS: Geo Environmental Management Society

GIDR: Gujarat Institute of Development Research

GOI: Government of India

GVK: Gramin Vikas Sanshthan

Ha: Hectare

iv

HYV: High Yielding Varieties

ICRISAT: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Arid

Tropics

IWDP: Integrated Wasteland Development Programme

IWMP: Integrated Watershed Management Programme

LMF: Large and Medium Farmers

LBS: Loose Boulder Structures

LNRMI: Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management Institute

LSCD: Loose Stone Check Dam

MOA: Ministry of Agriculture

MoEF: Ministry of Environment and Forests

MoRD: Ministry of Rural Development

MNREGA: Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee

Act

NGO: Non Government Organisation

NIRD: National Institute of Rural Development

NRAA: National Rain-fed Area Authority

NREGS: National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

NWDB: National Wasteland Development Board

NWDPRA: National Watershed Development Programme for Rain-fed

Areas

PCR: Project completion report

PIA: Project Implementing Agency

PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRI: Panchayati Raj Institutions

PSI: People Science Institute

RRS: Rapid Reconnaissance Survey

SC: Scheduled Caste

v

SIRD: State Institute of Rural Development

TERI: The Energy Research Institute

UNCED: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

WASSAN: Watershed Support Services and Activities Network

WCED: World Commission on Environment and Development

WDF: Watershed Development Fund

WDP: Watershed Development Programme

WDT: Watershed Development Team

WHS: Water Harvesting Structure

WSD: Watershed Development

YASHADA: Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development

Administration

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY____________________________________________

The Department of Land Resources, Government of India had entrusted a

study to the Centre for Rural Studies, LBSNAA in 2010 to conduct analysis

and documentation of the evaluation reports of watershed development

programmes implemented during the year 1998-2002. The evaluation studies

were conducted by various agencies across different parts of the country in

coordination with NIRD, SIRD, etc.

The study involves secondary review and analysis of reports submitted by the

agencies. It also includes review of secondary literature that includes both

books and research reports. The study is based on cross comparison of

indicators to provide a general overview of the impact and effectiveness of

WDPs. We have compiled data and tried to systematically analyse the major

findings based on common attributable indicators. However, we have taken

into consideration the data that are feasible for a comparative study across

states.

One hundred and five districts from twelve states namely, Uttar Pradesh,

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat,

Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Assam and

Nagaland were covered under the study. Sixty districts under IWDP, thirty

districts under DPAP and six districts under DDP were part of the study.

Another 9 districts in Karnataka were undertaken that includes DDP, DPAP

and IWDP projects. NIRD study covered 312 micro watersheds under IWDP,

160 micro watersheds in DPAP and 45 micro watersheds in DDP projects in 8

districts. Another 59 districts under IWDP, DPAP and DDP were covered in

Karnataka by NIRD. The studies by SIRDs and some ATIs covered 184 micro

watersheds under IWDP, 219 micro watersheds under DPAP and 19 under

DDP projects.

The organizations involved in the study are NIRD, SIRD, YASHADA, GIDR,

PSI, Dehradun; GEMS, Hyderabad; WASSAN, Secunderabad; Skill-Pro

Foundation and MIDS.

Major Findings Quality of Water Harvesting Structures (WHS)

The quality of Water Harvesting Structures (WHS) in majority of micro

watersheds in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat seems to be either good or very good.

In states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra, the quality is

reported to be either average or good. However, in Jammu & Kashmir, the

quality of WHS is reported not up to the mark.

vii

Issues identified:

Poor maintenance during post implementation phase. As a result, the siltation, damage, leakage, etc. were noticed in some watersheds.

In some states like Jammu & Kashmir there was no people participation during construction.

There was lack of adequate institutional mechanism.

No equity and benefit sharing mechanisms among user groups, PIAs, etc.

Reduction in soil erosion

In majority of micro watershed areas in the states like Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat,

Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan there is reduction of soil

erosion. In Gujarat both IWDP and DDP projects have achieved better than

DPAP micro watersheds. But in Rajasthan, IWDP and DPAP are better than

DDP projects. More than 2/3rd of micro watersheds have reduced soil erosion

to an extent more than 50% in these states. Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh

and Uttar Pradesh have also achieved good result with more than 25%

reduction in soil erosion. In Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu &

Kashmir it has been noticed that there is reduction in soil erosion.

Issues identified:

The general understanding is that in watersheds where area

treatments were undertaken the community reported reduction in soil

erosion. Soil and moisture conservation activities are significant in

reducing soil erosion.

Activities like afforestation, pasture development, horticulture, etc. can

directly check soil erosion but these activities are scanty in many

areas.

Community and cooperative action will be useful in small and marginal

farmers populated regions.

Increase in surface water and ground water

Increase in surface water is noticed in most of the micro watershed areas but

the degree and the level of change varies. Tamil Nadu state performs better

than many states in this regard. In states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya

Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Nagaland there is

viii

increase ground water level. Assam also exhibits substantial progress in

improvement of ground water level after implementation of the project. 40%

micro watersheds in Gujarat have resulted more than 2 meters increase in

ground water level after implementation of WDP. This is highest amongst

other states.

Change in land use pattern

There is positive change in land use pattern noticed in most watershed areas

across all states. Net sown area is increased in majority areas. All

programmes such as DDP, DPAP, and IWDP have shown positive trend with

more irrigated lands have been covered under the watershed programmes.

However, the main issue identified is that the people invest more in good

class land in some states. Adequate importance to poor class land is lacking.

Cropping intensification In Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, the cropping

intensity is higher. In contrast, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu the

cropping intensity is not in higher side and there is no substantial increase

observed.

Reduced work burden

WDPs have resulted in reducing the work load of women by 1 to 2 hours in

majority of states. Fetching drinking water, collecting fuel wood, fodder, etc.

are relatively easier after WDPs introduced. Among a few states, where the

data is available, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have reported better in reducing

workload of women. It was found that in Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal

Pradesh there is no significant reduction in workload.

Debt reduction position

Debt reduction position is found in majority of states with implementation of

WDPs. States like Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya

Pradesh and Nagaland perform well.

Involvement of CBOs

In the present study CBOs formed in all the study states were examined. The

findings reveal that watershed committees had been actively involved in the

implementation of watershed programme. User groups for all the major

activity had been formed with exceptions of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal

Pradesh. It is found that in most cases the watershed committee exists in the

villages to some extent, while User Groups (UGs) are not active after

ix

completion of the project. Very few CBOs seem to have survived after the

withdrawal of the project. States like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Andhra

Pradesh have partially alive CBOs. It can be concluded that the success of

watershed programme would not only rely on the watershed institutions, but

depend more on how effective are the credit delivery system, input delivery

system, output markets and technology transfer mechanisms. It is therefore

imperative to ensure that watershed institutions should also have a strong

linkage with various institutions like banks, market, etc. (ICRISAT).

People’s participation, social audit, etc.

People‟s participation was moderate in majority places and in a few places it

was conspicuous by absence of formal institutional mechanism. During the

analysis it was revealed that out of the total 12 states, social audit was carried

out only in two states namely, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Further, at both

these places there was lack of awareness among the community about such

an exercise that was ever carried out. In some states even there is no proper

registers being maintained.

Various other benefits

Various other benefits such as reduced migration, women empowerment, etc.

are noticed in many regions. But the benefits are not maximized without

proper social mechanisms. Women participation in community institutions is

still limited. Landless communities and weaker sections are still left out of the

land focused programmes.

Employment opportunities for the community members are increased with

better wage earnings in construction work during pre watershed and

engagement in the agricultural field during post watershed programmes. But

no specific formal mechanisms are developed to enhance the opportunities

1

Chapter-1

Introduction

Effective use of land and water is fundamental to growth and sustainable

development. The concept of watershed management has evolved to ensure

effective use of both natural and social capitals. Thus, the watershed

development programmes include land, water and human resources as

essential components. The watershed programme is primarily a land based

programme, which is increasingly being focused on water, with its main

objective being to enhance agricultural productivity through increased in situ

moisture conservation and protective irrigation for socio-economic

development of rural people (Joshi, et al. 2004, 2006). It has been essential in

a country like India where majority of the population depends on agriculture

and about 60 percent of total arable land (142 million ha) in the country is

rain-fed. A large portion of the rain-fed areas (65% of arable land) in India is

characterized by low productivity, high risk and uncertainty, low level of

technological change and vulnerability to degradation of natural resources

(Joshi, et al, 2004). Over the years, the sustainable use of land and water has

received wider attention among policy makers, administrators, scientists and

researchers. Almost all major international developmental agencies like World

Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Food and

Agricultural Organisation (FAO), and Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its allied agencies amongst others have

emphasized sustainable use of water and other natural resources.

It is realized that sustainable development is synonymous to maintenance of

productivity of natural resources and maintenance of ecological equilibrium.

Kushwaha and et al. (2010, p.1479) noted that the concept of sustainable

development has received much needed impetus after the Rio Conference in

June 1992, mainly through the 27 principles on sustainable development and

the action plan called Agenda 21 (UNCED, United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992). The

approach was followed up in a big way during the World Summit on

Sustainable Development in 2002 at Johannesburg. The Summit re-

emphasized the need for strengthening the three pillars of sustainable

development, viz. economy, society and the environment. The watershed

forms an appropriate unit which links all these three components and has a

direct bearing on human lives. The watershed approach is a system-based

approach that facilitates the holistic development of agriculture, forestry and

allied activities in the proposed watershed. It also forms an appropriate unit for

2

analyzing the development-linked resource problems, designing the

appropriate solutions of identified problems and eventually testing the efficacy

of the measures taken up.

Watershed Development Programmes (WDPs) have been accorded high

priority in India‟s development plans (Singh, 1991). These programmes have

been initiated in India to improve and sustain productivity and the production

potential of the dry and semi arid regions of the country through the adoption

of appropriate production and conservation techniques. The WDP approach

seeks to improve and develop all types of lands-government, forest,

community and private lands- that fall within a particular watershed. It is a

holistic approach to improve and develop the economic and natural resource

base of dry and semiarid regions (Ninan and Lakshmikanthamma, 2001). The

programmes have stressed upon improvement of wasteland, runoff reduction,

water conservation and protective irrigation mechanism in all areas including

desert prone areas and drought prone areas. Development programs,

envisaged under its purview include almost every activity which concerns

land, water and biomass production. Experiences have shown that watershed

as a base is very effective in use and management of land and water

resources. With increasing awareness about the problems related to

environment, use of watershed terminology is becoming popular and

moreover in view of their potential for growth, improvement in income levels

and augmenting the natural resource base of the disadvantaged regions of

the country (Singh, 1991).

Objectives of Watershed Development Programmes (WDPs)

Watershed development aims to balance the conservation, regeneration and

use by humans of land and water resources within a watershed. Common

benefits from successful watershed development projects include improved

agricultural yields and increased access to drinking water. The overall

attributes of the watershed development approach, by and large, are three

fold, viz. promoting economic development of the rural area, employment

generation, and restoring ecological balance (DoLR, 2006). However, the

multiple objectives include:

Environmental- For protecting vegetative cover throughout the year, to

create ecological balance in the watershed area, protecting fertile top soil,

utilizing the land based on its capabilities, in situ conservation of rain water,

increasing ground water recharge, etc.

3

Economic- It draws attention for increase in cropping intensity through inter

and sequence cropping, maximizing farm income through agricultural related

activities such as dairy, poultry, sheep and goat farming, improved and

sustained livelihood status of the watershed community with special emphasis

on the poor and women, etc.

Institutional-It includes formation of watershed committees and self-help-

groups, establishing sustainable community organization, etc.

Social-It includes alleviation of poverty, awareness generation, improving

skills of the local community, capacity building activities, women‟s

participation in decision-making process, empowerment of the community,

etc.

Equity-To develop equitable distribution of the benefits of land and water

resources development and the consequent biomass production, involvement

of village communities in participatory planning, implementation, social and

environmental arrangement, maintenance of assets and to operate in a more

socially inclusive manner.

Components of Watershed Development Programme

The components of watershed development programme would include; (i) soil

and land management (ii) water management (iii) crop management

(iv) afforestation (v) pasture or fodder development (vi) livestock management

(vii) rural energy management (viii) other farm and non-farm activities (ix) and

development of community skills and resources. All these components are

interdependent and interactive.

Watershed Development Programmes (WDPs)

Watershed Development Programmes (WDPs) are among the very important

programmes placed under the purview of Department of Land Resources

(DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD). Three important schemes

namely, IWDP, DPAP, and DDP are widely implemented by the State

Governments with due priority. The DoLR has been committed in updating

guidelines for these schemes with periodic inputs from Research

Organizations, Voluntary Organizations, Technical Committees, Workshops

and Seminars amongst others. Especially, the inputs from the C.H.

Hanumantha Rao Committee and Parthasarathy Committee are quite popular.

4

Evolution of watershed development approach

Though the watershed development approach was adopted as early as 1949

yet status wise as today it stands fragmented in terms of activities, programs

and funding sources (Vaidyanathan, 1991). There had been a tendency for

proliferation of activities with special area, rural development and employment

programs. Departments namely agriculture, forests, rural development,

National Waste Land Development Board and voluntary organizations are

working on different programs like soil conservation, land shaping and

development, minor irrigation, silvipasture, social or farm forestry and

afforestation.

Three ministries at the Centre namely, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA),

Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) and Ministry of Environment and

Forest (MoEF) along with some respective departments in the States are

involved in policy formulation and implementation of watershed development

programmes. Ministry of Agriculture started this programme way back in

1960s and mainly dealt with the issues such as to check soil erosion,

optimizing production in rainfed areas and reclaiming degraded lands.

Subsequently, the MoA approaches were broader and the attention was also

in other areas such as soil and water conservation in the catchments of RVPs

and Flood Prone Rivers (FPRs), WDPs in shifting cultivation areas,

reclamation of alkali soil, Watershed Development Funds and Externally

Aided Projects (EAPs). MoRD has been implementing watershed

development projects only since the late 1980s. It deals with non-forest

wastelands and poverty alleviation programmes having components of soil

and water conservation. Watershed programmes implemented by MoRD

include the Drought Prone Areas Programme, Desert Development

Programme, Integrated Wastelands Development Programme, and Externally

Aided Projects (EAPs). Since 1989, the MOEF has been implementing the

National Afforestation and Eco-Development Project, with the intention of

promoting afforestation and development of degraded forests within an

integrated watershed approach.

It is reported that up to the 10th Five Year Plan (2002–07), nearly 51 mha has

been developed on watershed basis. The MoRD accounted for 63% of the

„treated‟ area and the MoA „developed‟ the remaining 37% of the area. The

MoEF and Planning Commission had only limited involvement. During the

Eleventh Plan, the three area development programmes, namely, Integrated

Wasteland Development Programme, Drought Prone Area Programme and

Desert Development Programme have been integrated and consolidated into a

single programme called Integrated Watershed Management Programme

5

(IWMP). This consolidation is for optimum use of resources, sustainable

outcomes and integrated planning. The modified IWMP would adopt a three tier

approach in which the upper reaches which are mainly forested and hilly would

be treated with the support of Forest Department. For land situated intermediate

slopes above the agriculture lands, the IWMP would address all the necessary

issues of land treatment by adopting best possible options including cropping

pattern, horticulture and agro-forestry etc. In the lower tire, which are plains and

mainly agricultural lands, the IWMP would be dovetailed with the employment

generating programme such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

(NREGS) an would fill the critical gaps of NREGS and vice-versa. Under the new

programme, a cluster approach would be followed with a broader vision of

natural hydro-geographical unit of average size of 4,000 to 10,000 ha comprising

of clusters of micro-watershed which will be selected as project area. The

programme is implemented by dedicated institutional agencies at state and

central level. The project period is proposed in the range of 5 to 7 years in three

distinct phases, i.e. Preparatory, Watershed works and Consolidation phase. The

consolidation phase will include livelihood activities, marketing, processing and

value addition activities (Planning Commission, Government of India).

Review of literature

There is plethora of literature available on watershed management

programme covering wide range of issues. However, in this piece of work we

have only attempted to review selected literature from the vast sources

literature available in the context of understanding major issues, impact and

effectiveness of the programme. Studies by Farrington, et al (1999),

Deshpande and Narayanamoorthy (1999), Kerr et al (2000), Vaidyanathan

(1999, 2006), Reddy and Dev (2006), Biswas, et al (2005), Pascual, et al

(2009) and others have discussed several issues in watershed development

programmes. They have covered policy related issues, institutional

drawbacks, implementation issues, community and participation issues, etc.

Despite the fact that there are large numbers of issues already covered, the

research scope in the issue of watershed management is tremendous. Over

the years, with the attention shifted from more centralized to decentralized

system of governance, watershed development programmes have equally

emphasized on decentralized approaches such as more community and

people‟s participation and involvement of PRIs in planning, executing and

monitoring of the projects, etc. To ensure good governance, mechanisms like

social auditing, periodic review and better documentation processes are taken

into account as best practices in some of the WDP regions. There is a good

number of studies available on participatory aspects of watershed

management. Wani, et al (2001) study in Kothapally in Andhra Pradesh is one

6

of such studies that highlight the effective community participation in

watershed management. In fact, their study has developed the model for

effective participation in watershed management.

Deshpande and Reddy (1991), Shah (2001), Joshi (2004) and others have

reviewed different dimensions of watershed management. These studies

while addressing several issues have also focused the positive impact of

watershed management on cropping, agricultural productivity, employment

generation and increase in income amongst others. The Kothapally study by

Wani et al (2001) has shown significant impact of watershed management on

crop production, increase in ground water level, reduction in runoff water,

increase in income, etc. Similarly, ICRISAT has reported various benefits of

the watershed development programmes in the country.

Studies by Deshpande & Narayanamoorthy (1999), Kshirsagar, K.G., M.P.

Madhusoodhanan, S. Chavan and R. Rathod (2003) and many others have

acknowledged that the watershed development programmes are potential to

augment income and reduce poverty among the watershed communities.

These studies have focused that there is positive change in crop yielding and

productivity, cropping intensity and optimum use of farm implements despite

some odds. Deshpande and Narayanamoorthy (1999) have observed several

positive impact of National Watershed Development Programme for Rainfed

Areas (NWDPRA, implemented in 1990) across the four states in the Western

and Central Rainfed zones of India viz. Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh

and Maharashtra. However, they have noticed that the changes are varying

across states. Some of the issues identified by them are:

The guidelines are well prepared but not effectively implemented.

Absence of any external monitoring and evaluation has relaxed the

programme and the implementing officers also do not realize these

constrains due to absence of feedback.

The extension machinery was not properly equipped to meet the

requirements.

Further, their studies of NWDPRA in the southern plateau for the states of

Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka show that there was lack of

effective beneficiary participation in the meetings and training programmes.

Moreover, there was lack of proper local planning in the hilly areas. They have

emphasized the need for local planning, peoples‟ participation, training,

capacity building, etc.

7

Bio-physical aspects of watershed development are studied by large number

of researchers from both science and social sciences. Kerr et al (2002)

noticed that many studies have revealed that watershed development

interventions were successful in controlling soil erosion, runoff reduction, etc.

Most of the studies on watershed management in India have reported

significant changes in bio-physical aspects than in social and institutional

aspects. Farrington et al. (1999) also noted that the successful watersheds

have in fact reduced runoff water and recharged ground and surface water

aquifers, improved drinking water supply, increased agricultural intensification

and crop productivity. Studies by MYRADA, TERI, ICRISAT and other reputed

organizations have focused on bio-physical, social, economic and institutional

dimension of watershed development programmes. Kalpataru Foundation

(2001) has observed similar changes after implementation of the WDPs under

various schemes.

Participatory approaches of watershed management, emphasis on

decentralized approach or bottom up approach, etc. are widely discussed by

Farrington (1999), Yugandhar, et al (1999) Kerr (2000) D‟silva Emmanuel and

Sudha Pai (2003) and Vaidyanathan (2006) amongst others. All these studies

have stressed importance of proper institutional mechanism both at the

ground level and at the top level. Some of the authors have also talked about

the issues of equity in distribution and lack of inclusiveness. ICRISAT has

reported the lessons learnt from the previous watershed management

programme studies in different regions of the country. Some of them are as

follows:

1. Lack of equity in the benefits to small holders and landless.

2. Lack of Sustainability in the management of projects after cessation of the

project.

3. Lack of Community participation in watersheds.

4. Lack of Scaling up methods and models.

5. Lack of holistic approaches in the technical support to most development

projects by NGOs.

Sen (2008) has given significant comment on Indian policies with regard to

watershed development programmes and rural development. In a book,

Water First: Issues and Challenges for Nations and Communities in South

Asia edited by Lahiri-Dutt and Wasson (2008), she has extensively discussed

some of the significant issues on mainstreaming participatory principles,

8

reorienting the concept of sustainability‟ in WDPs, reemphasizing equity

aspects of watershed programmes, reconsidering scales of operationalisation

of watershed programmes, cost-sharing, evaluation and mid-term correction

of watershed development programmes amongst others.

Despite the fact that the studies are aplenty in the area of watershed

management, the documentation and analysis of the evaluation studies and

impact assessment studies is essential to set up a benchmark for the future

studies. This can help in further improvement of the programme in the wake of

Integrated Watershed Management programme (IWMP) already implemented

in the country.

Objectives of the study

To examine various performance indicators that contribute towards

effective implementation of the programme

To assess overall impact of the programme on;

◦ Ground water level condition, reduction in soil erosion, increase in

surface water and other physical conditions in watershed

management

◦ Land use pattern, cropping pattern and agricultural productivity in

the region

◦ Socio-economic and livelihood conditions of the communities

◦ To identifying existing issues and deficiencies (if any) in

implementation of the programmes

Methodology

The Department of Land Resources, MoRD had entrusted a study to the

Centre for Rural Studies (CRS) for analysis and documentation of the reports

submitted by various agencies to assess an overall impact of the WDPs in the

country. Complying with the offer to analyse and document the study reports,

the CRS had undertaken the study in the second half of 2010. The authors

have read the reports thoroughly before commenting upon any issues with

regard to watershed development programmes. In order to have better

understanding about the issues, the authors have visited several research

institutes and collected literature for review.

9

Thus, the study is primarily a cross-comparison of indicators to provide a

general overview of the impact and effectiveness of WDPs in the country. We

have compiled and systematically analyzed the major findings based on

common measurable and attributable indicators highlighted in the reports.

The detailed list of the districts, states and schemes studied by various

Institutes/Agencies involved in the study is as follows:

Sl.

No.

State Number of

districts

covered

Programmes and

districts covered

Agencies involved in the

study

1. Rajasthan 14 IWDP: Jaipur, Bundi,

Tonk, Jhalawar, Sirohi,

Sawai Madhopur, Ajmer,

Baran, Dausa, Dholpur,

Jaipur,

Rajasamand, Udaipur

Indira Gandhi Panchayat

raj and Gramin Vikas

Sansthan (IGPRS)

(State Institute of Rural

Development) Jaipur,

Rajasthan

08 DPAP: Dungarpur,

Baran, Banswara, Kota,

Tonk, Jhalawar,

Udaipur, Sawai

Madhopur

05 DDP: Barmer, Bikaner,

Jaiselmer, Jalore,

Rajasamand

2. Assam 01 IWDP: Hailakandi

North Eastern Regional

Institute of Water and Land

Management, Tezpur

Assam

3.

Maharashtra

01 IWDP: Amravati

Watershed Development

and Management Centre,

SIRD, YASHADA 02 DPAP: Yavatmal,

Satara

4.

Madhya Pradesh

05

IWDP: Shahdol, Sihore,

Seoni, Narsinghpur,

Guna

MGIRD, Madhya Pradesh

and Council for Training

and Research in Ecology

and Environment, New

Delhi

10

06

DPAP: Chindwara,

Damoh, Seoni, Shahdol,

Umaria, Jabalpur

Council for Training and

Research in Ecology and

Environment, New Delhi

5. Nagaland 06 IWDP: Wokha,

Zunheboto, Mon,

Dimapur, Mokokchung,

Kohima

National Institute of Rural

Development, North

Eastern Regional Centre

Jawaharnagar, Khanapara,

Guwahati

6.

Gujarat

04 IWDP: Panchmahal,

Sabarkantha, Patan,

Junagadh

SIRD, Ahmedabad

Watershed Development

Research Unit,

Society for Promoting

Participative Ecosystem

Management

(SOPPECOM), Pune

and

Gujarat Institute of

Development Research

(GIDR), Ahmedabad

05 DPAP: Amreli,

Panchmahal,

Bhavnagar, Bharuch,

Junagadh

01 DDP: Patan

7. Andhra Pradesh 06 IWDP: Nalgonda,

Medak, Warangal,

Khammam, East

Godavari, Nellore

Geo Environmental

Management Society

(GEMS), Hyderabad

8. Himachal

Pradesh

06 IWDP:Hamirpur III,

Hamirpur IV, Kangra,

Kinnaur, Shimla,

Sirmour

People‟s Science Institute

(PSI), Dehradun

01 DPAP: Bilaspur

9. Jammu &

Kashmir

01 IWDP: Rajouri People‟s Science Institute

(PSI), Dehradun

10.

Karnataka

09

Bangalore (rural),

Belgaum, Bellary,

Gulbarga, Kolar,

Raichur, Tumkur,

Chitradurga, Hassan

Poverty Learning

Foundation,

Secunderabad

11

11. Uttar Pradesh 08 IWDP: Varanasi, Agra,

Ambedkarnagar,

Chandauli, Lakhimpur,

Lucknow,

Pratapgarh, Sitapur

Watershed Support

Services and Activities

Network (WASSAN),

Secunderabad

08 DPAP: Balrampur,

Behraich, Hamirpur

Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur,

Mahoba, Sonbhadra

12. Tamil Nadu 09 IWDP: Coimbatore,

Dharmapuri, Karur,

Namakkal, Salem,

Thirunelveli,

Tiruchirapalli, Vellore,

Virudhunagar

SKILLPRO Foundation and

Madras Institute of

Development Studies

(MIDS)

Sample micro-watersheds studied

NIRD study covered 312 micro watersheds under IWDP, 160 micro

watersheds under DPAP and 45 micro watersheds under DDP projects in 8

districts. Another 59 districts under IWDP, DPAP and DDP were covered in

Karnataka by NIRD.

The studies by SIRDs and a few ATIs had covered 184 micro watersheds

under IWDP, 219 micro watersheds under DPAP and 19 under DDP projects.

Limitations of the study

As already cited, this secondary study is primarily based on the reports

submitted by the evaluating agencies. The reports can be appreciated for the

relatively wide coverage of the data but the depth was limited. Approaches

followed by the agencies differed in sample size, measurements regarding

land use, water conservation, etc. Inquiry related to some social issues like

women's empowerment, community building were lacking. Majority of the

agencies clubbed the data on the three schemes inhibiting a clear and

specific picture on impact by individual schemes. We have sincere efforts in

analyzing and bringing forth the present report. However, the analysis would

have been much better if reports provided could have followed a more uniform

and intensive approach.

12

Chapter-2

Review and Analysis

This chapter is a gross but precise analysis to examine effectiveness and

assess impact of the watershed development programmes (WDPs) under

IWDP, DPAP and DDP schemes covering wide range of areas from north to

south, west, and north-east in the country. The evaluated reports of

watershed development programmes produced by various agencies helped

us examining several issues pertaining to water harvesting structure,

conservation mechanism, land use pattern, and livelihood issues amongst

others under watershed management. We have compiled and systematically

analyzed the major findings based on common measurable and attributable

indicators highlighted in the reports.

1. Quality & Status of water harvesting structures

Harvesting the rain and runoff water is the prime objective of the watershed

development programme. To do this, many structures of various types like

check dam, nala bund, farm ponds, etc. needs to be constructed across the

gullies of various orders. Quality and current status of water harvesting

structures play a crucial role in generating impacts in a post project scenario.

It helps us assessing the nature of project implementation. Further, unless the

qualities of the structures are good, the desired results cannot be produced.

Also these structures are expected to withstand the rough conditions. Thus

the quality is essential to maintain status quo. Maintenance of water

harvesting structures is significant to enhance storage capacity and also in

certain cases the infiltration capacity. The structures also require periodical

maintenance like plastering, pointing, and repairing to prevent cracks and

leakages. Maintenance of storage capacity and infiltration capacity is

essential in order to avoid water flow as a runoff.

The better performing states to maintain quality of harvesting structure are

Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and

Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and

Madhya Pradesh have mostly good and average performance in this regard.

In Jammu & Kashmir, the quality of WHS is not up to the mark.

It was found that in Gujarat more than 84% of watersheds had structures that

can be placed in either good or very good category and hardly any watershed

13

was found to be under „poor‟ category. This reflects good quality of

construction in terms of selecting technically appropriate site, technical

specificity of construction (wing wall, apron, pitching and core wall in case of

earthen structures, spill way, inlet and outlet etc), good quality of material

used, and effective community consultation amongst others. In Gujarat, the

northern districts fared well in case of quality of implementation and it is DDP

followed by IWDP that do better in case of schemes. The scheme wise

analysis can be referred at figure-1. The evaluation also assessed the status

of the structures. It was found that more than 50% of the structures are in

good working condition. However around 38% of WHS are partially damaged

with structural problems like cracks, scoring from sidewall, leakage, problems

for apron, spillway, stone pitching etc. Siltation was very less as people had

removed silt. Partially damaged structures were found in more or less equal

numbers in most of the watersheds.

The quality of water harvesting structures in Tamil Nadu under IWDP scheme

revealed that out of the 45 watersheds taken for evaluation, the quality was

found to be good in 67%, very good in 18%, satisfactory in 11% and poor in

4% of watersheds (Figure-1). The status further reveals that while 51% of the

structures have remained intact without having any damage, 40% structure

have silted up and in 9% watershed structures were found to be damaged.

The major issues observed by the evaluating agencies are: quality and

maintenance of water harvesting structures, location of watershed, improper

design, lack of good quality, and problem of delaying in desilting acitivity

amongst others.

Study in Uttar Pradesh that covers both IWDP and DPAP schemes revealed

that out of the 87 sample watersheds the quality of water harvesting

structures was found to be good in 23 (26.44%), satisfactory in 41 (47.13%)

and poor in 23 (26.44%) watersheds. Thus, 73.56% watershed structures

were found to be either good or satisfactory. Further, scheme wise analysis

shows that DPAP is comparatively better than IWDP as far as WHS is

concerned. But poor quality of water harvesting structure leading to damage

or partial damage is a major concern. This is followed by silting up of soil in

the watershed, which is also a major concern in most of the watersheds.

In Madhya Pradesh, the quality of water harvesting structures in majority of

watersheds (92%) was found to be either satisfactory or good. 5.3% of

watersheds are found to be very good. However, maintenance is poor during

post implementation. The management of activities after implementation is

found to be weak in many watersheds.

14

In all the 15 sample districts of Rajasthan, except Jaisalmer, majority of the

households had reported either partly functional or fully functional water

harvesting structure. In Jaisalmer majority of the households (>50 percent)

had viewed about broken or dysfunctional structures. On the other hand,

medium rainfall receiving districts like Bundi, Dausa and Tonk majority of the

households viewed that the structures are fully functional. This could be due

to the greater benefits from the WHS in the medium and higher rainfall

regions or districts. Majority of the households from the arid districts of

Jaisalmer, Bikaner, Barmer and Jalore responded that maintenance of

retention walls with the watershed development fund (WDF). With regard to

water bodies called „Khadins‟ majority of the households reported that

de-silting of these water bodies has not been done in eleven of the fourteen

sample districts and more so in the case of arid districts. Whatever a little

de-silting was done it was done by small and landless households.

The quality of construction in Jammu & Kashmir is found not up to the mark.

All the structures erected during the implementation were found to be defunct.

Check dams were silted and some were broken. As reported, the possible

reason could be that these structures were constructed without people‟s

participation.

For the construction of check dam in Assam, timber shuttering technology

was used. It is a simple and cost effective technique. The gully control

measures were also made with locally available materials and earthwork was

also found to be appreciable. However, some of the assets had been

damaged owing to flood in 2004.

Karnataka exhibits poor performance with its district Hassan as the front

runner while Raichur ends up lowest. As per the evaluating agency the

maintenance of the structures was hardly visible in the study area. In Andhra

Pradesh indigenous materials were used by the project implementing agency

and specified norms were applied for the construction of water harvesting

structures.

In Maharashtra despite of its good quality water harvesting structure, siltation

was found to be a serious concern.

Similarly, in Himachal Pradesh, about 35% to 72% of the structures were

observed to be in working condition but silt was being cleared occasionally.

Here also user groups reported that there is no mechanism in place for the

15

management of the created assets and there is no equity in benefit sharing

either.

Major issues identified

A major issue identified was lack of clarity in mechanism with regards to

maintenance of structures during and post implementation phase. As a result,

the siltation was found to be common in most of the watersheds. Damage

without proper maintenance, lack of adequate institutional mechanism and

local community involvement are some of the issues identified by the studies.

No proper management of WDF is another issue. Lack of awareness among

various stakeholders about usages of WDF is noticed in some states.

2. Community contribution to Watershed Development Fund (WDF)

For effective management of a watershed, WDF is established out of the

contributions from the stake holders. The contribution should be a minimum of

10% of the cost of the work executed on private lands (5% for SC/ST) and 5%

in case of common property. This fund should be utilized for maintenance of

assets created on community land or for common use after completion of the

project. Contribution is collected from the beneficiaries as it allows a sense of

ownership over the assets created. It is also a reflection on their involvement

in planning and execution of the watershed program.

Findings reveal that the contribution is made by deducting the wages of labor

engaged in watershed work. This deduction from the wages was seen in

majority of the cases. Sometimes the beneficiary also contributed to WDF in

terms of cash or kind. In a few cases the fund was deposited in the banks of

the nearby towns as FDR and was mostly seen lying unutilized.

In Uttar Pradesh, it was reported that out of the 87 sample watersheds,

contribution was totally paid by the beneficiaries as per the norms in

just two DPAP and one IWDP watersheds. On the other hand,

contribution was paid partly by beneficiaries and partly taken out from

labor wages in 10 DPAP and 12 IWDP watersheds. In another 62

watersheds (29 DPAP and 33 IWDP), contribution was totally taken out

from the labor component.

In Tamil Nadu, out of the 45 watersheds, in 42% watersheds the

beneficiaries paid as per norms, in 33% cash was partly paid by the

16

beneficiary, in 9% cash was partly taken from labour wages and in 16%

it was completely taken from the labour wages.

In Jammu & Kashmir, the contribution of watershed development fund

is nil.

In Himachal Pradesh, complete Watershed Development Fund was

utilized in construction of various assets. Community made negligible

contribution. Highest contributions were made by Sirmour and

Hamirpur districts and lowest by Kinnaur. This could be attributed to

the fact that there was lack of interest and active participation amongst

the villagers during the implementation of the Integrated Watershed

Development Programme.

In Maharashtra the public contribution was less than 5%.

In Assam, it was found that the Watershed Committee deducted the

amount from their total estimate cost and until now, no user charge

was collected from those who are applicable. Thus, community

participation was there during planning and execution stage but not

during the post project implementation.

Andhra Pradesh and Nagaland reported that all the beneficiaries have

contributed for watershed development programme as per norms.

In Rajasthan, funds were collected from the beneficiaries as a

community contribution. This was collected in both cash and labor

form, which varies from 5% to 10% of the project cost. This fund was

deposited in the banks of the nearby towns as FDR and still lying

unutilized. This fund has not been utilized so far in absence of clear cut

guidelines. This community contribution was deducted from the wages

of the labor proportionately.

In Madhya Pradesh, Watershed Committees opened Project Fund

Account and Development Fund Account in each watershed but there

was very limited knowledge about operation of watershed

development fund account to watershed committee functionaries. The

average people had almost no idea about purpose and process of use

of this fund.

In Gujarat, WDF was created out of the wages of labor. Only in case of

36% of watersheds the WDF component was taken as per the norms.

This was observed mainly from the NGO supported projects. Eighty

percent of projects in Banaskantha and sixty percent of the projects in

Patan followed the norms while very few projects from the tribal areas

of south Gujarat adhered to the norms. Overall DDP projects seemed

to perform better on this aspect. With regards to status of fund, it was

either exhausted or was lying unutilized.

17

Overall findings reveal that the contribution to WDF is not same in all the

states. Not in all the watershed areas the contribution is made as per norms.

When it comes to the contribution, it is not that always the beneficiary

contributes. In certain cases the beneficiary pays partly and the balance is

paid by the labors. It was seen to be completely deducted from the wages of

the labour or in extreme cases it was deducted from the total estimate cost of

the project. Even where the fund was created the community lacked

awareness about the mechanism for its usage. This reflects that the

community doesn‟t seem interested in the project and has not been mobilized

properly by the project implementing agency. It also reflects that Gram sabha

was not engaged properly by PIA for dissemination of information to the local

community during project implementation phase .All this has resulted in poor

maintenance of the watershed works after withdrawal.

3. PIA wise performance in different states

One of the objectives of the study is to assess performance of the project

implementing agencies (PIA) with regard to implementation of the

programme. In this regard some reports have shown impact of watershed

development programmes in both government and non-government PIAs. It

was found that in some states like Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat GO run PIAs

are doing better. Further, in some states like Madhya Pradesh and Andhra

Pradesh, NGO run PIAs perform better (Figure-6). Therefore, there is no

proper correlation found between PIA and WDP impact on physical, biological

or social factors.

Impact Assessment

1. Increase in ground water level

Increase in ground water table in watershed areas is one of the important

measurable indicators of successful watershed programme. Various factors

are accountable for increase in ground water. The water harvesting structures

play a key role by storing water and allow sufficient time for water to percolate

into the ground. Land development activities such as contour bunding, land

levelling and cultivation practices also contribute towards accumulation of

ground water. The increased water levels also render some respite in the

drinking water situation in the project villages.

18

As observed from the data furnished by the evaluating agencies, the ground

water level experienced marginal increase in Andhra Pradesh, Jammu &

Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh. This could be attributed to undulating topography

of the area, low or irregular rainfall, impermeable layers below surface of the

water harvesting structures, and over exploitation of ground water. In Andhra

Pradesh, majority of watersheds have reported marginal increase in ground

water level even after WDPs (Figure-2). Uttar Pradesh faced severe drought

conditions after completion of watershed program which could be one of the

major reasons for this marginal increase or to some extent reduction in

ground water level. WDPs resulted moderate increase in ground water level in

Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil

Nadu, Karnataka and Nagaland. The study in Assam revealed that WDP

areas had substantial progress in the improvement of ground water level after

the implementation of the project.

2. Increase in surface water and stream flow

Increase in surface water or stream flow is another indicator that can help

establishing positive impact of watershed development programmes on

physical factors. Both surface water and stream flow has increased during the

post watershed development programmes in many states. In Madhya

Pradesh, in all the watersheds the surface water has projected growth of

<20% and stream flow <5%. In Rajasthan, 49% watersheds had <20%

increase in surface water and 46% between 20-40% and 5% shows no

increase. Similarly, 44% watershed regions had <5% stream water flow, 53%

had 5-10% stream water flow and no increase in flow in 4% noticed. Tamil

Nadu has also shown a better impact with 73% watersheds the surface water

has increased between 20-40% and 27% the increase is below 20%. Stream

flow period has increased by less than 5% in 56% watersheds. In 40%

watersheds it has increased between 5-10% and in few cases (4%) the

surface water has increase beyond 10%.In Andhra Pradesh, surface water

increased by up to 40% and increase in stream water flow between 5 to 10%

in all watersheds. 44.7% watersheds in Uttar Pradesh had registered increase

in surface water. Of 44.7%, 17.2% and 19.5% watersheds had increase in

surface water by 20-40% and <20% respectively. Only 8% watersheds had

registered increase surface water more than 40%.

3. Soil erosion reduction

The best performing watersheds are those where soil erosion was reduced by

more than 50 percent and the worst performing are the ones where there is

19

an increase in soil erosion or the implementation failed in arresting soil

erosion. Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu feature in best performing states. This

could be attributed to the fact that there is a linkage in quality and status of

water harvesting structures. In other states as well there is reduction in soil

erosion but with certain degree of variations.

The state of Uttar Pradesh was successful in reducing soil erosion in 75

watersheds out of the 87 sample watersheds. In remaining 12 watersheds

there was no change seen in soil erosion or soil erosion was not there. On

further looking at 75 watersheds, soil erosion reduced the maximum extent

(more than 50%) in 11 DPAP and 7 IWDP watersheds. In remaining 57

watersheds the soil erosion got controlled up to 50% after watershed. Among

these 57 watersheds 25 watersheds were implemented with DPAP funds and

32 watersheds with IWDP funds (see Table-1).

In MP where area treatments were undertaken the community/beneficiaries

report reduction in soil erosion as compared to pre watershed situation. Over

all impact on soil erosion is positive with reduction in soil erosion in all areas

irrespective of both DPAP and IWDP.

Gujarat has reported that in 98.3% of micro watersheds there is reduction in

soil erosion (Figure-3). In DDP it is 80% micro-watersheds where there is

reduction of soil erosion more than 50% and among 20% micro watersheds

the reduction is up to 50%. Further among IWDP watersheds, it is 70% micro

watersheds where there is reduction of soil erosion above 50% and in 30%

watersheds there is reduction of soil erosion up to 50%. The IWDP projects

have 30% micro watersheds which exhibit more than 50% soil reduction and

65% micro watersheds exhibit up to 50% reduction in soil erosion (Table-1).

70 to 90% of the total micro watersheds have been treated through the

programme. Area was treated with activity like Contour Bund, Gully Plug,

Nalla Plug, Check Dam, Village Pond, Bori Bund, Afforestation. These have

contributed in checking soil erosion in varying degrees. All projects in Patan

report more than 50% reduction. These findings corroborate the observation

that DDP projects gave more stress on the area based treatments and thus

astounding results.

Findings in Tamilnadu revealed that in around 73% of the watershed the soil

erosion has reduced between 25 and 50 percent, where as in 27% it is

beyond 50% (Table-1). The ones in which reduction is more than 50% are 12

watersheds , 1 from Coimbatore, 4 from Thirunelveli , 1 from Tiruchirapalli, 2

from Vellore and 4 from Virudhunagar. As per farmers response soil erosion

20

has reduced except for very few in Virudhunagar and Tiruchirapalli. Soil

erosion has reduced to greater extent in Dharmapuri, Salem, Thirunelveil,

Tiruchirapalli, Vellore and Virudhunagar. As far as the soil erosion in cultivable

land is conderned it has reduced in 62% watersheds and in 38% it is

moderate. In none of the watersheds the soil erosion was observed to be

severe now. In case of non arable land in 91% it was found to be moderate

and in 4% it was very less. Only in 4% one each in Namakkal and

Virudhunagar it was found to be severe.

More than 50 percent of the farmers in 14 of the fifteen districts of Rajasthan

have reported reduction in soil erosion to the extent of more than 25 percent.

In the case of Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Barmer districts in the arid zone,

substantial number of farmers have reported that there is no reduction in soil

erosion. Highest reduction is noticed in the humid south eastern plains

districts of Bundi, Baran and semi-arid eastern plains districts of Tonk and

Dausa along with Dholpur from the flood prone zone. On the whole, impact of

WSD on soil erosion is prominent in the districts with rainfall ranging between

500 and 900 mm. Overall impact was found to be positive in all the districts

except Jaisalmer. The study by NIRD in Rajasthan reveals that 87%

respondents have viewed positive change in soil erosion reduction under

IWDP, 73% respondents have viewed positive change in soil erosion

reduction under DPAP and only 59% respondents viewed positively in DDP

projects (Figure-4).

Jammu & Kashmir reveals that 60% reduction of soil erosion except for

Patrara watershed where soil erosion reduced by only 20% as a result of

IWDP.

The soil of Assam is of highly clayey texture hence high erosion occurs due to

rainfall in the barren land. The vegetative barrier with “Murta” (a local species

of cane bamboo) was used to check soil erosion. This has resulted reduction

in soil erosion.

Andhra reported no reduction in soil erosion as no measures were taken to

contain it. In Pamukta village in Nalgonda district and Pathur village in Medak

district the gullies were plugged with loose boulders instead of filling it by

earthen work followed by stone pitching.

In Maharashtra there is reduction in soil erosion but execution of the project

was not done properly. The instructions in the detailed project report were

21

ignored. As a result, it appears that erosion-sedimentation control is a distinct

possibility. In Amravati district of Maharashtra loose Boulder Structures were

constructed from ridge to valley in series. These were found to be very

important structures in controlling soil erosion. Most of the LBS were found

silted and needed to be raised. The gully plugs and LBS in Khatkali and

Bhilkheda villages were observed in good condition. In Satara district, in

village Asavali, CCT was proposed in the DPR but not executed. In all the 17

villages in Mann, Koregaon and Khandala blocks, the activities have not been

implemented according to proposed plans, except for the 6 projects in Khatav

block. The DRDA took over implementation from NGO and conveniently

carried out watershed activities like earthen nalla bunding and cement nalla

bunding. Therefore, the general impact is devoid of soil erosion control that

seems to have been ignored all through the projects.

The general understading is that in watersheds where area treatments were

undertaken the community reported reduction in soil erosion as compared to

pre watershed situation. Soil erosion is prominent in the districts with low

rainfall. However, the variation in the percentage of reduction depended on

soil and moisture conservation activities in the respective districts. Activities

like afforestation, pasture development, horticulture can directly check soil

erosion but these activities are scanty and executed works are also not

satisfactory. It is expected that soil losses would be substantially reduced if

community or cooperative action is taken as in developing countries the size

of a farm does not allow a small farmer to have an impact on land

improvement hence concerted effort is required.

4. Runoff reduction

With regards to runoff reduction it was observed that the programme is

successful in achieving this goal. Runoff is indicating a positive impact in most

of the project areas. According to the beneficiaries this has been possible

because of the contour bunding or field bunding which has also helped in

checking the runoff of rainwater resulting in soil moisture retention.

5. Land use pattern, cropping pattern and agricultural productivity

There is an attempt here to understand how the WDPs have helped improving

land use pattern and agricultural productivity across different watershed

regions. In order to give a general picture of the scenario, the central

government schemes of IWDP, DPAP and DDP evaluated by the established

organizations are taken into consideration for review and analysis.

22

(a) Change in land use pattern

Better land use pattern is one of the important objectives of watershed

management. With increase in surface water conservation and increase in

availability of water in the watershed regions, it is expected that there will be

more positive change in land use pattern.

In Himachal Pradesh, the change in land use is in a positive direction due to

watershed development programme. The report indicates about 35% to 70%

changes in land use in all the districts of the state. This is especially due to

initiation of vegetable cultivation especially in fields close to development of

irrigation structures. There is also decrease in cultivable wastelands due to

WDP in the state. On an average about 60% of the cultivable wastelands

especially that are nearby the newly developed irrigation structures are put into

use i.e. cultivation started in these wastelands due to WDPs.

Rajasthan has shown a very positive change in land use pattern after

implementation of the watershed management programme. For example, in

Baran positive change is observed in all watershed areas (Figure-5). The

average net sown area increased from 274.8 Ha to 309.65 Ha after watershed

programme. In Jaipur, the average net sown area has increased from

333.29 Ha to 346.71 Ha. However, the distribution is much skewed. In

Dungarpur, almost all watershed areas have an increase in area under both

kharif and rabi crops. Jhalwar district has undergone a phase of transformation

with more areas from an average 426 Ha during pre watershed period to

490.22 Ha in post watershed period in are being covered under cultivation with

better irrigation facilities, an increase of 41.67 Ha in the average area irrigated

during post watershed period (Table-2). Similarly, the other districts too have

positive impact on land use pattern in the post watershed period.

Madhya Pradesh has obtained noticeable changes in the land use pattern with

most villages in the watershed areas in Guna, Narsinghpur, Seoni and Sehore

undertaken for the study reported to have positive trend. This positive trend is

found in both DPAP and IWDP areas. In Seoni district DPAP Phase (I & V), and

IWDP-V, in Shahdol DPAP Phase (I & VII) and IWDP (I) have all received

positive trend in land use during post project period. The study by NIRD further

reported that there was increase in the net cultivated area as well as the twice

sown area under the DPAP, the average increase noticed minimum 5 Ha and

maximum 25 Ha respectively, however the completion report indicates

minimum 10 Ha and maximum 80 Ha in Chhindwara, min 10 Ha and

maximum 104 Ha in Damoh, Min 7 Ha and Max 20 Ha in Jabalpur, minimum

7 Ha and maximum 65 Ha in Seoni, minimum 18 Ha and maximum 178 Ha in

23

Shahdol, and minimum 40 Ha and maximum109 Ha in Umaria. The average

area sown more than once has shown a positive increase in Umaria and

Shahdol. More or less, in all the districts, increase in the net cultivated area

and sown more than once noticed (Table-3). Kodo crop has been replaced by

the main Rabi crops in the districts. Similarly, Gram sowed in the cultivated

areas as a second crop in a year.

In Maharashtra, the study in Satara district has reported positive change in land

use pattern in the DPAP areas. For example, the total land treated under the

DPAP programme in the project was 11763 Ha in the 15 watersheds visited by

the study team. In the pre-condition of the project the 5460 Ha of land is under

net sown area, which is increased up to 6073 Ha in the post conditions. About

613 Ha more land is brought under cultivation due to increased water level. In

Yavatmal there is some change in land use pattern. 10% increase in net sown

area observed after the watershed programme implemented in the studied

regions.

In Gujarat, the impact assessment study helps us understand that the

watershed development programmes have induced land use pattern in a

positive direction with more area covered under cultivation.

From the state in Uttar Pradesh it is found that 41% watershed is reported to

have positive change. In Andhra Pradesh the farmers are investing more

resources in good class lands due to socio-economic conditions. This was

observed during the study in Nalgonda (IWDP-II), Medak (IWDP-II) and East

Godavari (IWDP-I) districts. They never tried to improve waste land (cultivable),

unfertile land and permanent cultivable fallow lands due to more cost on

improvement and risk factors. The awareness should be spread among the

farmers that they should use the land as per their capability, so the land can be

used properly and production can be enhanced without further deterioration of

land. In Tamil Nadu, the observation is same which is in line of the state of

Andhra Pradesh, where the farmers in most of the watershed areas (91%) are

investing more in good class lands and the proper land use pattern is noticed

only in a few watershed areas (9%) under integrated wasteland development

programme (IWDP). In the north eastern region, the study in Assam has not

reported much about the land use pattern, except the fact that there is change

in cropping pattern from mono-cropping to double and multiple cropping. This

shows that the watershed programmes have enabled for better and maximum

use of land. However, the study in Nagaland has reported a substantial change

in land use pattern with increase in terraced cultivation and horticultural

practices and declining in jhum cultivation in the region. For example, in

Zunheboto-I-IWDP the size of jhum land has reduced from 1606 Ha to 720 Ha

24

in the studied villages. TRC land has increased from nil to 960 Ha and

Horticultural land has increased to 27 from nil. Further, the size of forest land

has increased from 894 to 1220 Ha.

By and large the studies reported that there is improvement of land use

pattern and improvement in agricultural productivity in the watershed regions.

While DPAP programmes are doing well in some states than IWDP in other

states, it goes just reverse.

(b) Cropping pattern and agricultural productivity

Since water is essential for agricultural production, the provision of adequate

water by means of increasing ground water level and conservation of surface

water are instrumental. With available water harvesting structure farmers are

inclined to new cropping pattern and agricultural diversification. Both

agricultural diversification and intensification lead to increase in agricultural

productivity in the regions where watershed programmes are effective.

Crop diversification

Crop diversification is also an important outcome of the watershed

programme. In Andhra Pradesh, the districts covered under study such as

Nalgonda, Medak, Khammam, and East Godavari have resulted better

adoption to commercial crops especially among the small and medium

farmers. In most places, the farmers tend to move towards growing cotton and

in some places, the farmers are slowly moving towards growing fruits and

vegetables. Vegetable cultivation is popular where there is adequate water or

irrigation facility available. However, very less people are interested so far to

take up micro enterprises initiatives. Crop diversification in Madhya Pradesh

and Gujarat has not received any substantial attention by the farmers even

after implementation of the watershed programmes. The studies by NIRD in

MP and Gujarat have reported that in the absence of investments and

facilitation no such diversification happens. It is reported that there is hardly

any component or budget provision for production enhancement on

agricultural diversification and it was visualized that once natural resources

are conserved farmers on their own invest for such development. In

Rajasthan, the studies have reported that in majority of the watershed areas

there is change in crop diversification but the quantum of diversification is not

properly reported by the evaluating agencies. In Karnataka too, the watershed

has a very little impact on crop diversification, multipurpose trees, new

ventures and livestock. The impact on micro-enterprises is not very positive

25

either. The Jammu & Kashmir study has reported that there are marked

changes in crop diversification despite the fact that there is no proper

investment in this regard. The study reveals that SMF and LMF have derived

maximum benefits through cultivation of water consuming crops after

implementation of IWDP. There has been 50% and 60% increase in

multipurpose trees or farm lands among SMF and LMF respectively. In Uttar

Pradesh, It has been reported that the respondents‟ opinion about the positive

impact of watershed programmes on crop diversification is higher in IWDP

areas than in DPAP areas. Vegetable cultivation is being adopted in IWDP

areas. The performance of small-medium farmers (SMF) is better than large

and medium farmers (LMF). In case of Maharashtra, Assam, Nagaland, this

indicator is ignored under the study.

By and large crop diversification is possible due to WDPs. In some states

there is more preference to commercial crops with better water harvesting

structures and in irrigated areas. In some other states, vegetables crops are

well adopted. This not necessarily means that the area under cereal crops is

declining.

(c) Cropping intensity

The change in cropping intensity is one of the major indicators to assess

impact of the watershed development programmes.

Out of the states covered under the study, in Uttar Pradesh it was reported

that out of 87 sample watersheds almost 84 (>95%) watersheds have noticed

increase in cropping intensity. Out of the 84 watersheds, 32 DPAP and 31

IWDP watersheds have noticed less than 100% in cropping intensity. Five

DPAP and 8 IWDP watersheds noticed 100% in cropping intensity. Whereas

five DPAP and eight IWDP watersheds noticed more than 100% increase in

cropping intensity. It is more than 100% in three DPAP and six IWDP

watersheds. Majority of watersheds have noticed increase in yield of cereals,

pulses, cash crops, etc. However, this is not uniform across watersheds.

Pulses production is better in DPAP projects. In Andhra Pradesh, the average

cropping intensity in all districts undertaken for the study reported to have a

change on 100-120%. This has been possible due to increase in moisture

availability in soil and extending irrigation from surface as well as ground

water. These districts include, Nalgonda, Medak, Warangal, Khammam and

East Godavari. In rain fed areas, the cropping intensity has been increased by

20% or less than 20%. Farmers are showing interest towards mango and

cashew orchards and commercial plantations (cotton and tobacco). In this

26

state with the increase in moisture availability in soil and extending in irrigation

from surface as well as from ground water the average cropping intensity

increased by 100% through inter-cropping, double cropping and relay

cropping. These are mostly seen in the lower reaches of water harvesting

structures. Due to improvement in irrigation below the existing water

harvesting structures the yield of common crops such as cereals, pulses,

oilseeds, fruits, vegetable and cash crop(cotton)has been increased by 50-

100%, 25-50%, and <25%, respectively. It is observed that by WDP the milk

production has increased by 50-100% of the average output. In Tamil Nadu it

is reported that WDPs have not reported any substantial change in the

cropping intensity. In some watershed areas, the cropping intensity has

decreased mainly due to insufficient rain, easy access to NREGA work, etc. In

some watershed areas, the cropping intensity is reported to be same and in a

few cases there is increase in cropping intensity noticed. In Tamil Nadu,

WDPs lead to increase in yields due to various reasons. These reasons

include

Increase in residual moisture content due to contour bunding helping in

crop growth and yield

Loosening the hard strata, thus increase in infiltration of water and easy

penetration of roots due to land development activities like levelling and

tillage

Decrease in soil erosion and hence protection of fertile top soil due to

contour bunding

Increase of ground water and supplemental irrigation due to water

harvesting structures

Rajasthan has noticed no substantial change in cropping intensity with most

of the households (>70%) from the arid districts have reported no increase in

cropping intensity. Of the 15 sample districts 8 districts have majority of the

households (more than 50 percent) reporting increase in crop intensity up to

20 percent. The increase is more than 20 percent in Dausa as a substantial

proportion (35 percent) of households reporting the increase. On the whole,

the impact of WSD on crop intensity is up to 20 percent in the districts with

medium rainfall (LNRMI study). Similarly, Karnataka did not show any

perceivable improvement in cropping intensity. The Madhya Pradesh study by

NIRD has reported that around 80% of watershed reports cropping intensity

improvements above 100% which is consistent with the changes reported in

biophysical aspects like ground water improvements, soil erosion reduction,

etc. In Himachal Pradesh, people introduced vegetable cultivation in the

nearby irrigation areas. In Jammu & Kashmir, watershed programmes (IWDP)

27

have helped SMF and LMF to better focus on water consuming crops. There

is also increase in multipurpose trees or farm lands amongst SMF and LMF

respectively. The major findings of NIRD study in Gujarat have revealed that

50% of watersheds report an increase in cropping intensity above 100%. In

consistent with impact on bio-physical aspects, the cropping intensity impact

is observed in the watersheds in northern districts. IWDP projects have a

comparatively better performance than the DPAP and to an extent DDP

projects.

(d) Increase in agricultural productivity

Assam, there was increase in cash crop production (increase from 185 Ha to

232 Ha), milk production and paddy production. In Gujarat in almost all

watershed projects there is increase in production of cereal crops. Cash crops

are not pre-dominant in many watershed except for watersheds in North

Gujarat region. However, the increase reported is higher in case of IWDP and

DDP as compared to DPAP projects. More than 2/3rd of the IWDP and DDP

projects which are mainly implemented in the north Gujarat region report an

increase in cash crop production. In Maharashtra the productivity of all crops

is increased in the post watershed scenario. The study in Yavatmal,

Amaravati and Satara districts has reported that there is increase in

productivity of crops, cereals and cash crops. In Rajasthan increased

moisture retention and water availability for irrigation resulted into increase in

cash crop production. In Baran district it was reported that there is increase in

cash crop from 20-25% in kharif as well as rabi seasons. There is increase in

productivity of all major crops after watershed. In Bundi it was noticed

increase in cropping area for double crops, change in single to double

crop/mixed cropping, increase in crop production due to improvement in land

geometry and higher water inputs, increase in fodder availability, milk

production, etc. increased cropped area, productivity and farm income noticed

in the watershed areas of Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Kota, Sawai-

Madhopur districts amongst others. Most of the respondents in Madhya

Pradesh had positive opinion about increase in cereal production. Nearly 86%

respondents viewed that there is increase in yield of cash crop production.

Cotton is an important cash crop being grown in most of the watersheds,

predominantly, tribal inhabited watersheds in Betul and Rajgarh districts

reports no change in cash crop production as there are no cash crops

cultivated in these watersheds. In Himachal Pradesh, the yield from cash

crops has exceeded the yielding from other varieties among the Small-

Medium farmers and large and medium farmers. The cereals production has

also been better among both these categories after the watershed

programmes. In Jammu & Kashmir, the yield from maize production is better.

28

But with the watershed programmes operational the production of wheat is

gradually increasing. Andhra Pradesh study has reported that due to increase

in irrigation below the existing water harvesting structures the yield of

common cultivated crops such as cereals 50-100%, pulses <25%, oilseeds

<25%, fruits 25-50%, vegetables <50% and cash crop (Cotton and Tobacco)

25-50% has been increased. Efforts should be made to increase the yield of

common cultivated crops by adopting the following measures:

High yielding / Hybrid variety of seeds

Judicious use of irrigation water

Short duration and with low requirement of moisture level crops

Proper use of manures and fertilizers

There is also increase in production of milk due to watershed development

programmes in the region. Only concentration is given for the production of Milk.

Due to increase in biomass in grazing lands and availability of fodder helped the

farmer in production of milk and as such there is an improvement in economic

status also. It is observed that by watershed development programme the milk

production has increased by 50-100% of the average output.

The impact of watershed development programmes (WDPs) on crop yield is

reported to be positive in Tamil Nadu. It is noticed that the yield of cereals has

increased between 50 and 100% in 53% of watersheds, in 44% watershed it

is between 10 and 20%. The yield of pulses has not been so good as cereals

but certainly there is improvement in yield after watershed programme. The

less increase in yield is reported with oil seeds, an increase between 25 and

50% in 27% watersheds and less than 25% in 49% watersheds.

In Nagaland after the IWDP project implementation PIA and WDT members

had to change the mindset of the community towards settled cultivation from

jhum cultivation. With increase in area of irrigation and bench terracing has

resulted into a change in cropping sequence there by increase in cash crop

cultivation, horticulture and afforestation. The cropping frequency, cash crop,

horticulture, crop area, etc has increased significantly.

29

6. Reduction in workload

After the intervention of the land development and bunding activities under

watershed programme, the land which was earlier tough and lacked moisture

becomes bit loose. Rainwater also gets harvested which helps in the retention

of moisture in the soil. Further, the increase in ground water and surface

water also helps for providing drinking as well as irrigation water and reduces

the time to fetch drinking water. As soil and water quality and quantity improve

the availability of fodder and fuel wood also increases. Further, for women

who are primarily assigned to fetch drinking water and water for all other

household activities, watershed development programmes have been very

instrumental in reducing work load.

Some studies who have highlighted this issue have reported that watershed

programme resulted positively in reducing the workload of women in terms of

fetching drinking water, collecting fuel wood and fodder for livestock in the

study states by about 1-2 hrs per day. Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal

Pradesh observed no significant reduction in the workload as the community

did not get any respite from the water crisis. People still had to travel far

distances to fetch drinking water. In Tamil Nadu of the 45 watersheds taken

into consideration for study no change was observed in 9%, work load

reduced by 2 hrs in 38% and by 1 hr in 53% of watersheds. The ones which

report no change are 2 watersheds each in Virudhunagar and Dharmapuri. 2

hrs reduction in work load was reported from 1 in Coimbatore, 3 in

Namakkal, all 5 in Tirunelveli, 1 in Trichirapalli, all 5 in Vellore and 2 in

Virudhunagar. In rest of the watersheds it has reduced by 1 hr. In Rajasthan

districts like Baran, Dausa and Bundi falling in the rainfall zone of 600-850

mm have substantial proportion of households (35 and 43 percent

respectively) reporting adequacy of drinking water in quantity as well as

quality terms whereas Jalore, Jaisalmer and Barmer need to be noted for the

conflicting report on the quantity along with a very poor mandate on the

quality. In all other districts there is a clear mandate on the quantity but not on

the quality. In case of fuel wood WSD seems to have a more even distribution

of impact across the districts. More than 80 percent of the households in 11

out of 15 districts reported just enough fuel wood which is a reflection of

positive impact of WSD in most of the districts. Even arid districts of

Jaisalmer, Barmer, Jalore and Bikaner report improvement in the fuel wood

situation. This could be attributed to high proportion of cultivable waste lands

in these districts.

30

7. Debt reduction position

Assessment of debt reduction position is one of the important objectives of the

study. Reduction of debt has many social and economic implications. This can

help in reducing poverty and improving livelihood. With the absence of proper

irrigation facility, the crop loss is frequent. Telengana region in Andhra

Pradesh, Vidarbha region in Maharashtra, KBK region in Orissa, and

Sourashtra region in Gujarat are some of the glaring examples. The crop loss

after huge investment in agriculture makes the farmers dependent on

moneylenders and intermediaries. Many studies on farmers‟ indebtedness

have reported that the farmers are victims of money lending. They fall under

huge debt trap after investing large chunk of money in fertilizer, hybrid seed,

cultivation operations, etc. without protective irrigation facilities. In such

scenario, WDPs have helped a lot in providing irrigation facilities for better

agricultural operation. It is already analysed before that the WDPs have

helped improving land use pattern, cropping pattern and agricultural

productivity, livestock rearing, etc. The positive changes in agriculture,

horticulture and livestock production have helped better income generation

and debt reduction.

In Uttar Pradesh debt position reduced in 54 watersheds out of 87 sample

watersheds, in remaining 33 watersheds debt position did not reduce.

However, the percentage of reduction in debt position is not similar across

watersheds. In majority of watersheds (37) the reduction is up to 50%, among

these 37, 19 are DPAP and 18 are IWDP programs. In another four DPAP

and 10 IWDP watersheds the reduction is up to 100%. Highest reduction as

more than 100% is observed in one DPAP and two IWDP watersheds. Of the

45 watersheds in Tamil Nadu under study, in only 1 watershed the debt

reduction was found to be 100% in Vellore. There is no reduction in 27% of

which 5 each are from Dharmapuri and Salem and 2 are from Tiruchirapalli .

The debt has reduced between 0 and 50 percent in 44% which includes all

the 5 watersheds in Karur, 4 each in Coimbatore and Namakkal, 2 each from

Thirunelveli, Tiruchirapalli and Virudhunagar and 1 from Vellore. In 27% the

debt reduced between 50 and 100, 3 each from Virudhunagar,Vellore,

Thirunelveli and 1 each from Coimbatore,Namakkal, Tiruchirapalli.

The income generating activities carried out under the project in Assam

helped the poor people in getting some regular income. The overall poverty

level was reduced from 45 percent to 36 percent in the project area. Andhra

Pradesh reported 50-75% reduction in debt due to improvement in economic

condition by WDP. The situation was observed to be similar in Rajasthan,

Madhya Pradesh and Nagaland. However, the situation in Gujarat and

31

Maharashtra has not significantly improved the conditions of poor and

landless. Apart from some small-time labor work during the watershed

activities, there has not been much to improvement seen in their livelihood.

Gujarat watershed projects have given importance to conservation objectives

and very little effort is made to improve production and livelihoods on a

sustainable basis. Productivity in Amravati district has generally increased

due to in situ soil moisture conservation and therefore, the income has

increased to some extent but as an overall observation watershed activities

have been unable to make a visible impact in enhancing employment

opportunities. Thus there seems to be less impact on debt position reduction

of the community.

8. Involvement of Community Based Organisations (CBOs)

In watershed development programme it is essential that not only the Private

Property Resources but also the Common Property Resources are

developed, managed and maintained with active involvement of the local

community. For this to happen, it is highly important that every stakeholder in

the watershed accepts and implements the recommended management plan

and is very much involved in the planning, implementation and maintenance

phases of the project (Sharda, Sikka, Juyal 2006).

To increase participation, several groups like user groups, self help groups,

common interest groups, watershed committee, watershed association, etc.

are formed. Due representation is given to all castes. Activities are planned

and implemented with the help of these groups and these groups takes care

of the maintenance and sustainability of the activities. These groups need to

be formed carefully and trained well so that the assets created and benefitts

acrued are sustainable.

In the present study CBOs formed in all the study states were examined.The

findings reveal that Watershed Committees had been actively involved in the

implementation of watershed programme. User groups for all the major

activity had been also formed with exceptions of Jammu & Kashmir and

Himachal Pradesh. It is found in most of the cases that watershed committee

exists in the villages to some extent, while user group of the major activity are

not visible after completion of the project. Very few CBOs seem to have

survived after the withdrawal of the project. States like Uttar Pradesh,Tamil

Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have reported partially alive CBOs.

32

In Uttar Pradesh, CBOs are found functional till today in 12 watersheds. In

remaining watershed no functional CBOs existed. However, the percentage

of functional CBOs is less than 50% in two DPAP and five IWDP watersheds.

In another two watersheds each in DPAP and IWDP programs, the

percentage of functional CBOs is up to 100%. Only in Maighalganj watershed

in Lakhimpur district, CBOs are totally functional. Yet, the role of these CBOs

in Maighalganj is also fairly low.

All CBOs formed were not functional in all the watersheds in Tamil Nadu

either. SHGs are functional in all the villages in Namakkal dustrict except in

one microatershed of Namakkal. In all the villages in Dharmapuri, Salem,

Tirunelveli, Vellore, Virudhunagar and Tiruchirapalli SHGs are partly

functional. In all the villages in Dharmapuri, Salem, Tirunelveli, Tiruchirapalli,

Vellore user groups are partly functional where as in Virudhunagar it is partly

functional in 3 microsheds of Virudhunagar. With the completion of WDP in

Andhra Pradesh, most of the CBOs have become defunct, only less than 50%

CBOs were found to be functioning satisfactorily.

In Assam altogether 328 nos. of user group were constituted. They were

involved in preparing the watershed plan and execution of work. To make

sure that women participated in the planning and decision making of

watershed development work, a woman volunteer was engaged in each

watershed committee. Women volunteer was engaged to ensure women‟s

participation. In the project area, 178 SHGs were constituted with the

initiation of Block Development and NGOs. From the survey, it was found that

the SHGs and UGs though it was formed by group of people, the leaders

dominated of the funds received for watershed development. In some micro-

watershed, it was found that the President and Secretary played active role

while other members just joined the group for the sake of entering their

names. So participation of community became minimal. Participation during

post project implementation phase is negligible, which is a serious drawback

needs to be addressed.

In Rajasthan although people were involved in the implementation still CBOs

mainly SHGs became un-functional within first year of their formation.

Preliminary trainings were given to these groups by Project Implementing

agency but sincere efforts were not made for linking them with banks, markets

and other related outlets. Training and capacity building activities have not

achieved the desired results. At present most of the SHGs are not functional.

33

Study revealed in Gujarat that involvement of SHGs in social action is

significant. It shows awareness, empowerment and involvement of women in

social process but these activities are neglected. At present almost all SHGs

are non-functional only few female members merged into other groups like

Sakhi Mandals.

In Amravati (Maharashtra) under IWDP project, Watershed Committee and

Watershed Association were active during the project period. The User

Groups were not found very active. These were formed for different activities

such as watershed conservation structures, farm ponds, horticulture, etc. In

most of the villages these user groups were found to be idle and lacked any

agenda. 286 UGs were reportedly formed during the project period. Only few

SHGs were found to be active after the completion of the project. Though

some of the SHGs were found to be active but there is role of other

organization in promoting and sustaining these groups. In Yavatmal and

Satara districts of Maharashtra under DPAP Programme, it was found that the

users groups are not functioning post project.

It was found in MP that in most of the cases Watershed Committee still

existed in the villages to some extent, while User Groups (UGs) of the major

activity were not visible in real sense at a field level after completion of

project. It is learnt that although UGs have been formed and they have also

participated during implementation of programme but they have not been

sufficiently trained and prepared to do post management of watershed

programme. Self Help Groups (SHGs) were constituted under the

programme. Different types of income generating activities were selected for

them. The results are mix. Activities like vegetable cultivation, etc has

sustained while other activity in general have not sustained after withdrawal.

It reflects that activity should be selected in such a way in which people have

skill and market at local level. All classes of the village community were

represented in the watershed committee. There has also been at least 33%

women representation in the watershed committee. One volunteer from the

other categories has been selected under the Programme.

In Nagaland also CBOs were formed. SHG consisted of 10-12 members and

was provided with a revolving fund of Rs.10,000/- each. The maximum

number (72) SHGs were formed in the Mon district. The SHGs condition was

not found so good in Helipong and Angangba village in Tuenchang district

and Kuhuboto, Seithekima old and Chumukedima village of Dimapur district.

Most of the SHGs were found to be self-dependent in Chunlikha and

Phenwhenyu of Kohima, Longsa and Shaki of Wokha district. The SHG of

Sapoti, Sutemi and Chisilimi of Zunheboto district have created marketing

34

shed in the locality. They are practicing mixed agriculture along with bee

keeping. They are also involved in social work like helping poor and disable

people. Before Christmas they even distribute gifts in their locality. The

Watershed Association and Watershed Committee were found to be defunct

after the completion of the project. The new WA or WC were formed for the

new project.

No effective community development approach for developing village level

institution is noticed in some states like Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir

and Himachal Pradesh amongst others.

In Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh no user groups were formed and

all the self-help groups stopped working as the watershed project got over.

Now there are no CBOs functional in any of the watersheds.

It can be concluded that the success of watershed program would not only

rely on the watershed institutions, but depend more on how effective are the

credit delivery system, input delivery system, output markets, and technology

transfer mechanisms. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure that watershed

projects/institutions should also have a strong linkage with various institutions

like markets, banks, etc. (ICRISAT Report no.46)

9. People’s Participation

Participatory approach is essential in the planning and development of the

watershed management programme so that it becomes the peoples

programme with the government participating in it as a facilitator only. Active

people‟s participation is, therefore, highly critical in the success of the

watershed program (Kerr et al. 2002, Sreedevi et al. 2004; and Joshi et al.

2005). The available evidences confirm that there existed a positive

relationship between people‟s participation and benefits from watershed

program. The results of this study showed that the benefits were the highest

from the watersheds where people‟s participation was high. At majority of the

places it was moderate and in few it was conspicuous by absence. The other

impact indicators were also far ahead in watersheds having greater people‟s

participation.

People‟s participation in planning, developing and executing the watershed

activities is indispensable (Wani et al. 2003; and Joshi et al. 2005). Active and

voluntary participation of all stakeholders guarantees the successful

implementation of watershed program. Activity in one location affects

35

adversely or favorably in different location. Watershed development cannot be

done in isolation. Land being a natural entity and its treatment in a scattered

manner will not lead to any kind of development. These lands can be treated

on "ridge to valley" approach. A land lying in a valley cannot be improved if

the land at upper reaches is not treated. To synergies the process of

development all the stakeholders should develop their own rules to maximize

the benefit of the programme. It is believed and observed that better

organized and effective people‟s participation would yield higher benefits.

The participation of beneficiaries in planning and execution of the watershed

was seen more from LMF group. This implies that poor rural households were

less involved in planning and decision making processes in the watersheds.

However, the rural poor were offering their labor in various activities launched

in the watershed. In fact, for the smaller farmers and the landless laborers in

the watershed, there is often little prospect for development beyond the

employment generated from the watershed works over the project period

(Farrington et al. 1999). For gaining higher benefits from the watershed

related activities, greater involvement of the beneficiaries would be the

important factor.

Foregoing analysis reveals that people‟s participation is the key determinant

in the success of the watershed development program. People‟s participation

is not only critical during the implementation phase of watersheds but also

ensures conservation and development of Common Property Resources.

Peoples‟ involvement is the key to success, which brings about sustainable

development.

10. Social audit

The exercise of Social audit seems all the more important when the stakes

are high both in terms of investment and benefit. It also helps in making the

program transparent. Social audit is conducted jointly by the government and

the people, especially by those people who are affected by, or are the

intended beneficiaries of, the scheme being audited.

The scope of social audit:

• A social audit is conducted over the life span of a scheme or

programme, and not just in one go or at one stage

• It audits the process, the outputs and the outcome

36

• It audits planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

During the analysis it was revealed that out of the total 12 study states, social

audit was carried out at two states namely Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

Further at both these places there was lack of awareness among the

community about such an exercise that was ever carried out.

In Uttar Pradesh social audit was carried out only in one district, Balrampur,

Badagoan watershed funded under DPAP program. However, community in

Badagoan watershed did not seem to be aware of such an exercise carried

out ever during the implementation of the project. In the remaining 86

watersheds social audit was not conducted at all.

There is no proper social audit measures developed in many of the states. For

example, in Assam, there is no maintenance of muster rolls for employment

generation activities undertaken in the watershed regions.

Tamil Nadu reported that of the 45 watershed, social audit happened only in

27%. In rest of the 73% watersheds it did not happen. Only few people were

aware of all the items that happened under the watershed activities. Social

audit was performed in 4 watersheds in Namakkal, 3 each in Tirunelveli and

Vellore and 1 each in Tiruchirapalli and Virudhunagar.

It is pertinent to mention here that the purpose of conducting Social Audit is

not to find fault with the individual functionaries but to assess the performance

in terms of social, environmental and community goals of the organization.

All the foregoing measures can bring on board the perceptions and

knowledge of the people, can look at outcomes and not just outputs and can

involve the people in the task of verification, also, much greater acceptability

by the government. Government audit remains the basic audit, but becomes

more transparent and participatory. Social audit must be conducted in addition

for certain types of schemes and activities, especially those involving huge

and/or disaggregated expenditure.

Social Audit provides an assessment of the impact of organizations non-

financial objectives through systematic and regular monitoring, based on the

views of its stakeholders. The foremost principle of Social Audit is to achieve

continuously improved performances in relation to the chosen social

37

objectives. Thus, it is evident from the analysis that the position leaves

much to be desired and therefore, calls for concerted efforts from the

authorities concerned in terms of policy, planning and post implementation.

11. Management of common property resources (CPR)

Common Property Resources refer to the resources in which all the villagers

have equal rights. The villagers maintain, protect and enjoy the usufructs

with equal rights and responsibility. They however do not have any legal right

over the resources. Several common property resources are developed under

watershed development programme such as pastures, development or

renovation of water bodies, plantations in common land. While these

resources are being developed these provide employment to the folks and

once it is developed it contributes directly towards livestock management and

non-farm activities besides agricultural production.

The Common Property Resources are analyzed and presented here to

understand the position in regard to the way the community land is used

for fodder, fuel wood, etc., their maintenance and the role played by the

community with regard to CPR.

In Uttar Pradesh, only in two watersheds Common Property Resources are

maintained by Gram Panchayat out of the total 87 sample watersheds. These

watersheds are situated in Balrampur and Sonbhadra districts funded by

DPAP program. In remaining 85 watersheds there was no conscious effort

from Gram Panchayat or the Community.

Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan report more than half of the

watershed common assets to be partially destroyed. By and large, no

maintenance was carried out in most of the micro-watersheds. With regards to

CPR situation in Karnataka, it was revealed that there is a scope for

improvement. Hassan district is seen to be ahead of other districts. Jamu &

Kashmir observed no repair and maintenance. Villagers allow their cattle to

openly graze in the community lands. The participation of woman was found

to be nil and social fencing of community lands was not possible because of

less cooperation. After completion of the Project, Operation and Maintenance

of the activities was not seen to be effective in Maharashtra.

Process of maintenance of structure during and post construction is not clear

at village level in Madhya Pradesh. People are managing activity on their own

38

in the private land but structure made in the common land is not being

maintained properly in general. In a very few cases people have taken

initiative to do maintenance of structure in the common land.

The community participated in planning and execution of project in their own

villages. In Assam, however, there was lack of contribution in the matter of

money, labour or kind. They never collected user charge for using the assets

created under the watershed project. Thus, the community could not save

money other than the watershed development fund, which was deducted from

their sanctioned amount. The maintenance of the assets though was handed

over to the user group; they lack money for repair and maintenances of the

assets.

The study in Tamil Nadu reports that all assets created under the project were

accessible to all the people except in 3 watersheds of Salem where it is

limited only to the user groups. The assets created are used on sustainable

basis whereas in Virudhunagar only one watershed there seems to be a case

of exploitation.

Overall state of CPR can be put in two categories-the watersheds with no

maintenance at all and with not adequate maintenance mostly because of

lack of awareness among the community about clear cut procedure laid out

for maintenance of common property resources. Maintenance of assets and

management of Common Pool Resources especially land resources play a

crucial role in ensuring asset sustainability which in turn contributes to

environmental sustainability and equity and benefits to the resource poor in

the watershed. Thus, it is evident from the analysis that the position

leaves much to be desired and therefore, it calls for concerted efforts

from the authorities concerned.

12. Reduced migration

The latent aim of this project was also to reduce migration and generate

sufficient employment opportunity. Migration had completely stopped during

the project implementation stage. Since employment opportunities in form of

labor were available. But after implementation, though productivity and

income has increased to some extent, it was unable to reduce or stop

migration altogether. The project was not able to provide alternative

employment opportunities to the villagers. Promotion of non-farm sector

activities like dairy, poultry, goatry was found to be negligible which could

39

have provided some employment opportunities. Tree based farming or agro-

forestry and horticulture can also form a major source to provide employment

opportunity and reduce migration. But the projects attempted it on a meager

scale. Attempt to mitigate migration is required on a major scale.

13. Women empowerment

Empowerment is a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and multi-layered

concept. Women empowerment is a process in which women gain greater

share of control over resources such as material resource, human and

intellectual resource, information, and financial resources amongst others.

According to the Country Report of Government of India, "Empowerment

means moving from a position of enforced powerlessness to one of power".

Since empowerment is a latent phenomenon and cannot be measured directly

so aspects like participation, mobility, voice in decision making in home,

community, society were taken into consideration.

The analysis of this aspect reveals that women participation was not

adequate. They were part of SHGs, UGs, WCs, WAs also but it was nothing

more than mere presence. Mere presence of women members on the

watershed committee had no real impact as they were not effective in

decision-making process in the committee (Seeley et al. 2000). Women in

SHG did not feel confident to interact with people, officers, panchayats, bank,

etc. Only in case of Nagaland women seemed confident enough. A hearting

change resulted from the awareness created is that the community has

started paying attention to girl‟s education.

The World Bank defines empowerment as “the process of increasing the

capacity of individuals or groups to make choices and to transform those

choices into desired actions and outcomes. Central to this process is actions

which both build individual and collective assets, and improves the efficiency

and fairness of the organizational and institutional context which govern the

use of these assets.” In order to enlist active participation of women and

vulnerable groups targeted activities benefiting these groups economically are

suggested by Sreedevi and Wani (2007). Harnessing gender power by

balancing activities for men and women, farmers and landless people was

found effective to enhance the impact of community watershed programs

(Sreedevi and Wani 2007; Sreedevi et al. 2007).

40

Thus, as the World Bank (2001) report confirms societies that discriminate on

the basis of gender pays the cost of greater poverty, slower economic growth,

weaker governance and a lower living standard of their people.

14. Impact on landless community and livelihood improvement

Landless community should not be ignored in the developmental process.

These marginal families can be the part of indirect benefits and can be

included in the users groups, SHGs and other institutions. Most of them are

part of SHGs but not included the users groups in the project area. It seems

that watershed activities have not improved conditions of landless community

significantly. Apart from some minor labour work, there has not been much to

improve their livelihood.

Findings presented in other studies such as J.S.Samra (1999), Jacob Nirmala

(2003), Sangameswaran and Priya (2006), Roy and Iyer (2001), Parikh, S.

Acharya and K. Maiteraie (2004) also made similar observation that since

most of the watershed development programmes are essentially land-based,

and landless as well as weaker sections of the society in many cases feel left

out of the programme. Further it is seen that women benefit somewhat less

than men, though all benefit.

15. Employment Generation

According to the watershed guidelines, livelihood promotion is a very

important outcome of the project. Under this study, additional employment as

labor days in considered as a parameter for livelihood promotion.

Uttar Pradesh reported 20% to 40% increase in 18 DPAP and 15 IWDP

watersheds. Six DPAP and 10 IWDP watersheds observed maximum

increase of 40%. Less than 20% increase in labor was observed in 13

watersheds each in IWDP and DPAP. Tamil Nadu observed increment in

employment up to 40 days per year in only 5 watersheds (two are in

Tirunelveli and 3 in Virudhunagar). In rest of the 40 watersheds it was

between 20 and 40 days per year. Total 45 watersheds belong to IWDP. Here

also agriculture employment as well as female employment has increased.

Study in Himachal Pradesh reveals that WDP was able to generate

employment amongst the community. It was observed that Sirmour, Bilaspur

and Kangra performed adequately and rest of the districts like Kinnaur,

41

Shimla and Hamirpur could not generate enough employment. The reason

could be attributed to the fact that these areas were allocated less work

pertaining to watershed development. The findings also reveal that LMF

benefited more in terms of employment generation than SMF in the state.

In Maharashtra Satara district it was reported that during the implementation

of DPAP, earthen nalla bunding generated 168190 days in the 15 watersheds.

About 30389 man-days have been generated on the skilled activity of cement

nalla bunding and about 36630 man-days have been generated on the activity

of K.T. weirs. In Amravati district, it was reported that no other employment

opportunity was created apart from the ones during the implementation of the

IWDP. Here all are marginal farmers with very low irrigated percentage of

irrigated land. There is also Korku community who depend completely on

agriculture for their livelihood. There are no special efforts made for

generating employment opportunities in long term for the marginal and

landless farmers. According to an estimate by the evaluating agency, a total

number of 2.34 lakhs employment man-days are generated in all 20

watershed Project from Nine Villages, and approximately 2342 persons have

got employment for 100 days in a year and could earn around average of

Rs. 5700/-in a year in Yavatmal district .

In Madhya Pradesh, It was revealed that 95% of watersheds reported an

increase in availability of labour. Khargone, Raisen and Khandwa observed

employment up to 40 days per year. Under IWDP in Nagaland 209.5 lakhs

were spent on labor while generating 121630 male and 79690 female man-

days. Employment generation activity in Andhra Pradesh was reported to be

between 20-40 days per year for majority of the watersheds.

In Assam watershed project did not maintain record for employment

generation. The muster roll was not maintained as the works are executed by

the watershed committees. There has not been any additional employment

generation in Jammu & Kashmir due to watersheds.

In Rajasthan, additional employment has increased in 91 percent of the

watersheds, but the increase is less than 20 percent in 72 percent of the

watersheds. Though additional expenditure and debt reduction also reported,

attributing the impact entirely to WSD could be difficult. Though additional

expenditure got a score of 76 percent, it may not be entirely due to WSD, as

there could be due to other factors like inflation. Employment generation

activity was reported to be between 20-40 days per year in 19 watersheds.

Seventy five percent of projects from Gujarat report a moderate increase of

42

20-40 days per person per year. More than 40 person days increase is

reported from the northern districts and mainly from the projects that report

good impacts on other components, especially those from IWDP and DDP.

Andhra Pradesh has positive impact on consumer durables, consumption

pattern with implementation of WDPs. Many households were benefitted from

income generating activities.

It can be concluded that majority of the employment was generated between

20-40 days, among the sectors it was agriculture sector and women had

equal opportunity to participate in gaining benefit from employment

generation. Economic impacts across the schemes reveal that the

performance of DPAP watersheds is as good as that of IWDP watersheds.

DDP watersheds have scored less given the fact that this scheme is

implemented in the extreme environmental conditions. Considering this even

the limited impact can be judged as positive indication. Nevertheless, there is

a need to find the gaps and reasons so as to make it even more effective and

realize full benefits of the programme.

16. Poverty Alleviation

The data with respect to poverty alleviation as directly observed from the field

was only made available in the state of Assam. According to which there was

reduction of poverty level from 45 percent to 36 percent in the project area.

The income generating activities carried out under the project helped in

providing some regular income. Farrington et al. (1999) also observed that the

impact of these projects on poverty alleviation and the long-term sustainability

was however less clear. Even though the results indicate that successful

projects have in fact reduced rainwater runoff and recharged ground and

surface water aquifers, improved drinking water supply, increased the

irrigated area, changed cropping patterns, crop intensity and agricultural

productivity, increased availability of fuel and fodder, improved soil fertility and

changed the composition of livestock.

17. Improvement in Standard of living

Successful implementation of the watershed programme is realized in the fact

that it brings more lands under cultivation, improve the quality of the land

thereby the productivity. All the positive impacts of WSD are expected to

culminate in improved standard of living at the household level. People are

43

able to get some regular income perhaps some additional income which leads

to additional expenditure. Raised income enables a better life in terms of

better food, clothes, education, health, more spending at the time of festivals

and marriages, physical assets and amenities acquired.

Findings of the study revealed that majority of the households across all the

study area have reported only slight improvement in the standard of living.

The benefits of WSD have not fully translated into disposable income or net

gains to improve the standard of living.

The performance of Tamil Nadu was seen to be better than that of the other

states. 82% people experienced slight improvement in their life, whereas 7%

responded to have improved well. 11% experienced no improvement. 2% of

the farmers have purchased new land, 4% respondents have invested on

tractor. 52% have purchased cycles and 75% respondents have procured

new television sets. Health and education has also shown improvement but it

cannot be attributed completely to the watershed development programme as

other targeted governmental programmes are also being implemented in the

study areas.

18. Other impacts: Impact on SMF and LMF

Watershed Development being a land based activity affects all categories of

farmers. Mostly it has seen to benefit the large and medium farmers more

than that of small and marginal farmers. This could be attributed to the fact

that large and medium farmers have more land in terms of quantity as well as

quality and can make investment towards irrigation equipment etc.

To gauge the differential impact between small and marginal farmers (SMF)

and large and medium farmers (LMF), study performed in Rajasthan can

throw some light. It was examined with respect to bio-physical or

environmental indicators. SMF seem to have performed better with regards to

soil erosion, runoff reduction, accruing benefits of drinking water facilities

whereas large farmers are able to gain more from the irrigation impact of

WSD because of their better investment capabilities. The benefit of availability

of fodder was found to be neutral. Whereas, the benefits accrued in terms of

fuel and manure were seen to be more to LMF than SMF.

The study by LNRMI in Rajasthan has noted that the impact of WSD is neither

in favour nor against any particular group though variations can be observed

across the districts. At the aggregate level SMF seem to have gained more in

44

the case of runoff reduction, drinking water and vegetative cover, while LMF

gained more in terms of fuel and manure. Across the districts, LMF have

gained more in terms of most indicators in six (Baran, Tonk, Bikaner, Jalore,

Jaisalmer and Udaipur) of the 15 sample districts, while SMF gained more in

only one district (Dholpur). As far as the overall impact at the district level is

concerned LMF have reported significantly better impacts in five districts while

SMF reported significantly better impact in two of the districts. In the

remaining eight districts the differences are not statistically significant.

Majority of the districts where LMF benefited more are from arid and low

rainfall regions. This points towards a disturbing fact that benefits from WSD

in poor and backward regions not only low but are mostly cornered by large

farmers resulting in aggravation of inter and intra regional inequalities.

Findings from Karnataka study also reflect that large farmers seemed to have

benefited more from the implementation of watershed programme, where

76% farmers were small farmers and 24% were large farmers.

45

Chapter-3

Conclusion

Watershed Development Programme (WDP) is one of the most popular

development programmes implemented across the country. It is widely

admitted that WDP is seen as the panacea. This programme has been

directed towards the promotion of overall economic development and

improvement of the socio-economic conditions of the resource poor sections

of people inhabiting the programme areas through natural resource

enhancement (GoI, 2001b). Over the years there is much visible impact of

watershed development programmes among different communities across

various regions.

The general conclusions derived from the studies are as follows:

It was found that there was good quality water harvesting structure in

some watershed areas, but in some other watershed areas, it requires

further attention. Maintenance of WHS during post implementation

phase is poor in many states. Micro watersheds in DDP areas perform

better in this regard.

Contribution to WDF is as per norm practiced in some states. While in

some other states there is variation in terms of contribution to WDF.

There was reduction in soil erosion in the watershed areas. However,

the variation in the percentage of reduction primarily depended on

quality of soil and moisture conservation activities in the respective

regions.

There was marginal increase in ground water level in some states but

some other states exhibit better increase in groundwater level.

It was observed that the programme is mostly successful in maintaining

runoff reduction.

There is positive change in the land use pattern reported in most of the

WDP regions. In these regions, more waste land was converted for

productive use by the farmers. This has resulted increase in net sown

area in majority of the states. Further, better land use pattern has

helped increase in agricultural intensification and thus enhance

agricultural production.

46

Crop diversification is resulted out of more irrigation facilities available

in the watershed areas. However, the concern is that the people invest

more in good class of land. The investment in low quality land has not

received much attention.

Watershed programme resulted positively in reducing the workload of

women in terms of fetching drinking water, collecting fuel wood and

fodder for livestock in almost all the study states.

The income of the community members has increased to some extent

but watershed activities have been unable to make much visible impact

in enhancing employment opportunities.

The Watershed Committees had been actively involved in the

implementation of watershed programme in majority states. User

groups are formed in majority states, but their degree of involvement

varies. The user groups are hardly visible in watershed activities after

completion of the project. Very few CBOs seem to have survived after

withdrawal of the project.

The position about common property resources leaves much to be

desired and, therefore, it calls for concerted efforts from the authorities

concerned.

Migration was mostly reduced during the project implementation stage.

But further attempt is necessary to stop migration completely.

The analysis of women‟s empowerment shows that the women

participation was not adequate. Mostly, women lack in mobility, voice in

decision making at home or in community. Same is the case with

landless members. It seems that the livelihood conditions of landless

communities have not been significantly improved. Apart from some

minor labour work, there was nothing much to improve their livelihood.

It was realized that the position with regard to flow of funds and social

audit is limited to some watershed areas.

It was realized that participation of local community member is key to

success of the watershed projects. Participation also enhances

community empowerment. The participation of beneficiaries in planning

and execution of the watershed was seen more from LMF group. Poor

rural households were less involved in planning and decision making

processes in the watersheds.

Economic impacts across the schemes reveal that the performance of

DPAP watersheds is relatively as good as that of IWDP watersheds.

DDP watersheds have scored better under some activities like quality

of water harvesting structure but in some areas like reduction in soil

erosion, runoff reduction, etc DDP has scored less. However, it must

47

be considered that this scheme is implemented in the extreme

environmental conditions. Hence, even this limited impact can be

judged as positive. Nevertheless, there is a need to find out the gaps

and reasons so as to make it even more effective and realize full

benefits of the programme.

It was also found that majority of the households across all the study

areas had reported slight improvement in their standard of living. The

benefits of WSD have not been fully translated into disposable income

or net gains to improve the standard of living.

The study also suggests that the impact of watershed is more focused

towards physical and biological achievement, but the focus on social

aspects is limited. There are certain positive trends towards growth of

water level, soil regeneration capacity, land use pattern, cropping pattern,

livestock production, etc. However, social achievements have not been

properly addressed with implementation of WDPs. Majority of the reports

suggest that the positive effect of watershed development on lives of the

community is greatly limited.

48

Appendix

Figures and Tables

Figure-1: Quality of Water Harvesting Structures (Scheme wise)

Figure-2: Change in ground water level after WDPs in different states

49

Table-1: Impact of WDPs on soil erosion reduction in different States

across schemes

States Schemes Reduction of soil erosion in different states

(percent)

>50% Upto 50% Not reduced

UP DPAP 11 (26.8) 25 (61.0) 5 (12.2)

IWDP 7 (15.2) 32 (69.6) 7 (15.2)

MP DPAP 0 46 (100.0) 0

IWDP 0 48 (100.0) 0

Gujarat IWDP 21 (70.0) 9 (30.0) 0

DPAP 6 (30.0) 13 (65.0) 1 (5.0)

TN DDP 8 (80.0) 2 (20.0) 0

IWDP 12 (27.0) 33 (73.0) 0

Figure-3: Overall impact of WDPs on soil erosion in different states

50

Figure-4: Impact of WDPs on soil erosion reduction across schemes in

Rajasthan

Table-2: Increase in net sown area after WDPs implementation in

Rajasthan

Districts Pre-watershed

(Net sown area in Ha)

Post watershed

(Net sown area in Ha)

Baran 274.8 309.65

Jaipur 333.29 346.71

Jhalawar 426.0 490.22

Table-3: Increase in the net cultivated area as well as the twice sown

area under the DPAP in Madhya Pradesh

Districts Min (in Ha) Max. (in Ha)

Chhindwara 10 80

Damoh 10 104

Jabalpur 7 20

Seoni 7 65

Shahdol 18 178

Umaria 40 109

51

Figure-5: Increase in net sown area after WDPs (example: Baran,

Rajasthan)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920

Area i

n H

a

Post watershed (Ha)

Pre watershed (Ha)

Name of micro watershed

(DPAP Vith Batch)

1. Chhabra I (B)

2.Chabra D

3. Chhabra E

4. Chhabra F

5. Chhabra G

6. Choki D

7. Choki H

8. Halgana Balharpur

9. Mundala Umarthana

10. Nipania

11. Niwari A

12. Niwari B

13. Niwari C

14. Niwari D

15. Ghoghara

16. Ghoghara E

17. Shahabad C

18. Shahabad D

19. Shabad bhoyal

20. Sahrol Taleti

Figure-6: PIA wise performance and overall impact on different factors

in UP, MP and AP*

*Total points allotted for each factor (physical-40, biological-25, economic-20, and social-15)

Micro watersheds

52

References

1. Asian Development Bank (1991): Guidelines for Social Analysis of

Development Projects.

2. A Users Manual -Social Audit and the NREGA (n.d): Centre for Equity

Studies Sponsored by National Institute of Rural Development with the

support of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan.

3. Anon. (2001): Study Report on Watershed Development, Kalpataru

Research Foundation.

4. Biswas, A.K. et al. (2005): Integrated Water Resources Management in

South and South-East Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

5. Chopra, K., G. Kadekodi, and M.N. Murty (1990): Participatory

Development, People and Common Property Resources, Sage

Publications, New Delhi.

6. Deshpande, R.S. and V. Ratnareddy (1991): Watershed approach in

fragile Resource Regions-An analytical study of Maharashtra,

mimeograph series no.33, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics,

Pune.

7. D‟silva, Emmanuel., & Sudha Pai (2003): „Social Capital and Collective

Action: Development Outcomes In Forest Protection And Watershed

Development‟, Economic and Political Weekly, April 5, 2003.

8. Farrington, John Cathryn Turton., & A.J. James (eds) (1999):

‘Participatory Watershed Development’, Challenges for the Twenty –

First Century‟, Oxford University Press, Delhi.

9. FAO (1989): The State of Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture

Organization, Rome.

10. Gopinath, P. (n.d): Watershed as a Development Intervention for

Providing Livelihood Security in India, Centre for Development Studies,

Tata Institute of Social Sciences Deonar, Mumbai.

11. Government of India (2001 b): Report of the Working Group on Natural

Resources Management, Rain-fed farming and Natural Resource

Management from the 10th Five Year Plan, New Delhi.

12. Government of India (2007): Report of the Working Group on Natural

Resources Management: Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007–2012),

Planning Commission, New Delhi.

13. Joshi, et al. (2004): Socio economic and Policy Research on watershed

Management in India: Synthesis of Past experiences and needs for

future research, ICRISAT, Hyderabad.

53

Available at SAT eJournal, August 2006, Vol. 2, Issue 1

(http://www.icrisat.org/Journal/agroecosystem/v2i1/v2i1soci.pdf)

14. Joshi, P.K. et al. (2008): Report no. 46 on Impact of Watershed Program

and Conditions for Success, A Meta Analysis Approach, International

Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Arid Tropics, Andhra Pradesh.

15. Kerr, J. et al. (2000): An Evaluation of Dry Land Watershed Development

Projects in India, Environment and Production Technology Division,

International Food Policy Research Institute 2033, K Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A.

16. Khalid, M.A. et al. (2004): Impact Assessment Study of the Watershed

Development Programme, a Compendium, The Energy and Resources

Institute, New Delhi.

17. Khirsagar, K.G. et al. (2003) Evaluation Study of Wadgaonlakh

Watershed in Osmanabad District of Maharashtra, Osmanabad.

18. Krishna, Anirudh (2004): „Comparative Perspectives on Civil Society,

Participation and Governance‟, in Prakash, S., & Per Selle (ed.) (2004):

Investigating Social Capital‟, Sage Publications.

19. Kushwaha, S. P. S. et al (2010): Sustainable Development Planning in

Pathri Rao Sub-watershed Using Geospatial Techniques, Current

Science, Vol. 98, No. 11,10 June.

20. Naik, A.V. (n.d): Watershed Management: A Way to Sustainable

Development, EPW Research Foundation, Mumbai.

21. Ninan, K.N. and S. Lakshmikanthanthamma (2001): Social Cost-Benefit

Analysis of a Watershed Development Project in Karnataka, Vol.30 No.3,

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

22. Pascual, U. et al. (2009): Water Agriculture and Sustainable Wellbeing,

Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

23. Palanisamia, K. et al. (2009): Evaluation of Watershed Development

Programmes in India Using Economic Surplus Method, Agricultural

Economics Research Review, Vol. 22 July-December pp 197-207.

24. Rao, Hanumantha Committee 1994 (2000): Report of the Technical

Committee on Drought Prone Areas Programme and Desert

Development Programme, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi.

25. Reddy, V. Ratna (2000): Sustainable Watershed Management

Institutional Approach, Economic and Political Weekly, September issue.

26. Reddy, V.R and S Mahendra Dev (2006): Managing Water Resources,

Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

54

27. Samra, J. S. and K. D. Sharma (2009): Watershed development: how to

make „invisible‟ impacts „visible‟? Vol. 96, no. 2, Current Science, 25

January.

28. Shah A. (2001): Who Benefits from Participatory Watershed

Development? Lessons from Gujarat, India, IIED Gatekeeper Series 97

IIED, London.

29. Rao. S.S. et al. (2003): Performance Index for Watershed Development,

Indian Geophys Union, Vol. 7, No.4, Pp. 239-247.

30. Sharda, V.N. et al. (2006): Integrated Watershed Management: A Field

Manual, Central Soil & Water Conservation Research &Training Institute,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

31. Sharda, V.N.,G.P.Juyal, B.S.Naik (2008): Watershed Development in

India: Status and Perspective, Central Soil & Water Conservation

Research &Training Institute, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

32. Sharma, S (n. d.): Rethinking Watershed Development in India: Strategy

for the Twenty-first Century, in India Proceedings of the Asian Regional

Workshop on Watershed Management, The Ecological Foundation, New

Delhi.

33. Samra, J.S, R.P. Singh and A.N. Mohin (2000): Soil & Water

Conservation and Watershed Management, Annotated Documentation of

CSWCRTI Publications 1954-98, Central Soil & Water Conservation

Research & Training Institute, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

34. Sen, Sucharita (2008): Watershed Development Programmes and Rural

Development, A Review of Indian Policies in Lahiri-Dutt and R.J. Wasson

(eds.) Water First: Issues and Challenges for Nations and Communities

in South Asia, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

35. Tideman, E. M., Watershed Management: Guidelines for Indian

Conditions, Omega Scientific, New Delhi, 2000.

36. Vaidyanathan, A., (2001): „Watershed Development: Reflections on

recent developments‟ in Nair, K.N., Chattopadhyay & Srikumar (eds.):

‘Watershed Management for Sustainable Development Field

experiences And Issues’, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level

Development, Trivandrum.

37. Vaidyanathan, A. (2006): India’s Water Resources: Contemporary Issues

on Irrigation, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

38. Vaidyanathan, A. (1999): Water Resource Management, Oxford

University Press, New Delhi.

39. Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Pathak, P., Singh P. and Singh, H.P. (2001):

Integrated Watershed Management through a Consortium Approach for

55

Sustaining Productivity of Rainfed Areas: Adarsha watershed,

Kothapally, India, Andhra Pradesh: A Case study. Paper presented at

the Brainstorming Workshop on Policy and Institutional Options for

Sustainable Management of Watersheds, 1-2 November 2001, ICRISAT,

Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.

40. WCED (1987): Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York.

41. Yugandhar B.N., J. Venkateswarlu & Vijay Kochar (1999): „Watershed

Based Development in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas of Andhra Pradesh‟,

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 18 No. (3), pp. 471-503 (1999).